5 ms·
> And...it is not like you HAVE to live in SF, there are plenty of cities nearby All of which have even more draconian zoning policies that permit only SFH (no
by e4e78a06 5y ago
> And...it is not like you HAVE to live in SF, there are plenty of cities nearby
All of which have even more draconian zoning policies that permit only SFH (not even a 5+1). If SF had 10 times as much housing maybe we'd have 10 times as many people being productively employed in industries in the city instead of being forced to locate elsewhere. Maybe some of those people wouldn't HAVE to work in tech/finance to afford the city.
Your opposition to increased density benefits only yourself and existing landowners.
- seanmcdirmid 5y agoI’m not against density, density does bring benefits that I prefer, just not affordability. Just that if SF was even more dense than it was now, it would still be NYC expensive, hardly affordable. Affordability isn’t a problem you can build your way out of, not in any context I’ve seen (Tokyo being a sole exception, we just have to have a falling birth rate and block off immigration for it to work). If SF had 10x the people, it’s density would be on par with Shanghai. If only Shanghai real estate were as cheap as SF’s, then we could make a valid comparison.
- arcticbull 5y agoFalling birth rate and immigration are irrelevant - all they do is contribute to the fact supply meets demand there. When supply meets demand prices approach the cost of construction.
- e4e78a06 5y agoShanghai real estate is expensive because China has no property tax. Coincidentally, California also has a problem with extremely high property valuations due to Prop 13 lowering taxes. > NYC expensive, hardly affordable NYC has record low new supply of housing relative to demand. Not a great example.