3 ms·

> SF is one of the densest cities in the USA (17k/sqm vs. NYC's 27k/sqm). This is irrelevant, it's obviously not sufficiently dense to meet demand. If you look

> SF is one of the densest cities in the USA (17k/sqm vs. NYC's 27k/sqm). This is irrelevant, it's obviously not sufficiently dense to meet demand. If you look at the photo you'll obviously see that it's simply not particularly dense by visual inspection. > Houses are expensive in SF because people want to live in SF. They are expensive because they do not permit sufficient construction to meet the demand, what about that do you disagree with? It's not just that people want to live there - it's because people want to live there and city council would rather keep a derelict parking lot for Nordstrom than put up a 27-story 500 unit condo building in the middle of downtown. [1] > If you want cheap housing for your city, make your economy unattractive like Gary Indiana, or, if you like your economy, take the Tokyo approach and make housing speculation unattractive and let units be small. That has nothing to do with what Tokyo does. Tokyo permits construction via federal zoning rules. [1] https://thefrisc.com/how-to-unpack-one-supervisors-rejection-of-the-project-to-turn-an-sf-parking-lot-into-500-homes-2985ae7137e3 https://thefrisc.com/how-to-unpack-one-supervisors-rejection...

seanmcdirmid 5y ago
> This is irrelevant, it's obviously not sufficiently dense to meet demand. If you look at the photo you'll obviously see that it's simply not particularly dense by visual inspection. Why does demand always have to be met in one smallish (geographically speaking) city? > They are expensive because they do not permit sufficient construction to meet the demand, what about that do you disagree with? It's not just that people want to live there - it's because people want to live there and city council would rather keep a derelict parking lot for Nordstrom than put up a 27-story 500 unit condo building in the middle of downtown. [1] > That has nothing to do with what Tokyo does. Tokyo permits construction via federal zoning rules. The former probably wouldn't have been approved in Tokyo either. But yes, I do prefer Tokyo's solution to zoning (residential can go anywhere, businesses can mix as well), and their solution to property speculation (housing depreciates rather than appreciates because it is so easy to rebuild) Still, SF is more dense than Tokyo (6,658 ppl / sqkm vs 6,158 ppl /sqkm), but as mentioned before, SF is tiny while Tokyo is huge.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  > Why does demand always have to be met in one smallish (geographically speaking) city? The demand is created by that community, located in that area - it is endogenous. These communities of people create self-reenforcing network effects. Logically it follows that the supply should be created where the demand is, not just because, well, that's where the demand is - but because it re-enforces this flywheel. Why would you put the supply somewhere the demand isn't?
- imtringued 5y ago
  >Why does demand always have to be met in one smallish (geographically speaking) city? Because wealthy people who live off capital gains live there. Tell them to spend their money somewhere else. People move there because they want or need the billionaire's money.

seanmcdirmid 5y ago

> This is irrelevant, it's obviously not sufficiently dense to meet demand. If you look at the photo you'll obviously see that it's simply not particularly dense by visual inspection. Why does demand always have to be met in one smallish (geographically speaking) city? > They are expensive because they do not permit sufficient construction to meet the demand, what about that do you disagree with? It's not just that people want to live there - it's because people want to live there and city council would rather keep a derelict parking lot for Nordstrom than put up a 27-story 500 unit condo building in the middle of downtown. [1] > That has nothing to do with what Tokyo does. Tokyo permits construction via federal zoning rules. The former probably wouldn't have been approved in Tokyo either. But yes, I do prefer Tokyo's solution to zoning (residential can go anywhere, businesses can mix as well), and their solution to property speculation (housing depreciates rather than appreciates because it is so easy to rebuild) Still, SF is more dense than Tokyo (6,658 ppl / sqkm vs 6,158 ppl /sqkm), but as mentioned before, SF is tiny while Tokyo is huge.

arcticbull 5y ago
> Why does demand always have to be met in one smallish (geographically speaking) city? The demand is created by that community, located in that area - it is endogenous. These communities of people create self-reenforcing network effects. Logically it follows that the supply should be created where the demand is, not just because, well, that's where the demand is - but because it re-enforces this flywheel. Why would you put the supply somewhere the demand isn't?
imtringued 5y ago
>Why does demand always have to be met in one smallish (geographically speaking) city? Because wealthy people who live off capital gains live there. Tell them to spend their money somewhere else. People move there because they want or need the billionaire's money.