4 ms·

It's a question of supply and demand. In areas with high supply or low demand, the price of housing approaches the cost of construction. In places with puniti

It's a question of supply and demand. In areas with high supply or low demand, the price of housing approaches the cost of construction. In places with punitive zoning rules that forbid new construction, limiting supply, and have high demand (I'm looking at you, San Francisco) the price of housing dramatically exceeds the cost of construction.

mint2 5y ago
Can we be more precise in language on what “new housing” means. More urban sprawl versus densification both are “new housing” but very different. I’m pro densification but highly against sprawl.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  Yeah me too, I should have been more precise. I was referring to densification.
  - dionidium 5y ago
    The two are pretty clearly related. If cities aren't allowed to densify, then people who would have lived in the city center have to live somewhere else.
- bumby 5y ago
  >I’m pro densification but highly against sprawl. My natural inclination is to agree with this statement, but I'd like to hear your rationale. Can you elaborate on your preference? Is it location dependent?
  - csee 5y ago
    Sprawl is environmentally unfriendly (transport distance and construction material usage), financially expensive (sparse service provision, roads), and it excludes poor people from the city center (since everyone has to compete to be within 15 minutes)
    - bobthepanda 5y ago
      also, it's actually bad for public health as well. Walking rates have declined significantly over the past few decades due to sprawl making it impossible to walk anywhere.
  - mint2 5y ago
    For starters When has sprawl not caused a reliance on cars? Eaten up large tracts of natural land with cookie cutter homes, pavement, and non-native office park type landscaping? Encouraged McMansions over appropriately sized homes with all the extra energy consumption etc those require? That’s just getting started. It’s not location dependent. Phoenix and Vegas or wherever are doing themselves no favors by building out rather than up.
actuator 5y ago
London doesn't have this problem if I am not mistaken. But housing is very very expensive still. So much that a 3 bedroom 120sqm apartment can be more than 6 million dollars even outside Central London depending on the area.
- jefftk 5y ago
  In London, if someone purchased all the properties on a block could they level the block and build something 15 stories tall? No: it has lots of regulations that restrict construction. (Not saying that allowing this is necessarily good or bad, but it's definitely something London has)
  - actuator 5y ago
    Yes, this definitely wouldn't be allowed there in some areas but isn't this true for most cities. I am all for more housing. But all areas in a city don't need to be redeveloped with high rises.
  - nicoburns 5y ago
    No, and for good reason: if everything is high-rises then housing becomes too dense. The problem isn't lack of housing density. The problem is too many people wanting to live in a small area. We need to reduce demand (by spreading over a wider area - more cities and rural areas too) rather than increase supply.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      I dont think there's any justification for this position, really. Density in Macau is 20,000 people per square kilometer. Parts of the NY/NJ metro area like Guttenberg are 22,000. San Francisco is 6,600. Hong Kong is 6,300. London is 5,700. There is a ton of room to increase density before we start reducing demand.
      - clpm4j 5y ago
        High density is not desirable to affluent families when the alternative could be a 3,000sqft single family home with a sizeable backyard in San Francisco, and these people tend to make the rules.
timerol 5y ago
In places with very high supply or very low demand, the price of housing can be far below the cost of construction, which comes with its own issues
- dionidium 5y ago
  The price can even go lower than the cost to remediate the property for residency. This is a bit of a tail risk. This has never happened to most U.S. neighborhoods, but the risk is not zero. Getting loans to build on these lots is nearly impossible, which contributes to their continued decline.

mint2 5y ago

Can we be more precise in language on what “new housing” means. More urban sprawl versus densification both are “new housing” but very different. I’m pro densification but highly against sprawl.

arcticbull 5y ago
Yeah me too, I should have been more precise. I was referring to densification.
- dionidium 5y ago
  The two are pretty clearly related. If cities aren't allowed to densify, then people who would have lived in the city center have to live somewhere else.
bumby 5y ago
>I’m pro densification but highly against sprawl. My natural inclination is to agree with this statement, but I'd like to hear your rationale. Can you elaborate on your preference? Is it location dependent?
- csee 5y ago
  Sprawl is environmentally unfriendly (transport distance and construction material usage), financially expensive (sparse service provision, roads), and it excludes poor people from the city center (since everyone has to compete to be within 15 minutes)
  - bobthepanda 5y ago
    also, it's actually bad for public health as well. Walking rates have declined significantly over the past few decades due to sprawl making it impossible to walk anywhere.
- mint2 5y ago
  For starters When has sprawl not caused a reliance on cars? Eaten up large tracts of natural land with cookie cutter homes, pavement, and non-native office park type landscaping? Encouraged McMansions over appropriately sized homes with all the extra energy consumption etc those require? That’s just getting started. It’s not location dependent. Phoenix and Vegas or wherever are doing themselves no favors by building out rather than up.

actuator 5y ago

London doesn't have this problem if I am not mistaken. But housing is very very expensive still. So much that a 3 bedroom 120sqm apartment can be more than 6 million dollars even outside Central London depending on the area.

jefftk 5y ago
In London, if someone purchased all the properties on a block could they level the block and build something 15 stories tall? No: it has lots of regulations that restrict construction. (Not saying that allowing this is necessarily good or bad, but it's definitely something London has)
- actuator 5y ago
  Yes, this definitely wouldn't be allowed there in some areas but isn't this true for most cities. I am all for more housing. But all areas in a city don't need to be redeveloped with high rises.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  No, and for good reason: if everything is high-rises then housing becomes too dense. The problem isn't lack of housing density. The problem is too many people wanting to live in a small area. We need to reduce demand (by spreading over a wider area - more cities and rural areas too) rather than increase supply.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    I dont think there's any justification for this position, really. Density in Macau is 20,000 people per square kilometer. Parts of the NY/NJ metro area like Guttenberg are 22,000. San Francisco is 6,600. Hong Kong is 6,300. London is 5,700. There is a ton of room to increase density before we start reducing demand.
    - clpm4j 5y ago
      High density is not desirable to affluent families when the alternative could be a 3,000sqft single family home with a sizeable backyard in San Francisco, and these people tend to make the rules.

timerol 5y ago

In places with very high supply or very low demand, the price of housing can be far below the cost of construction, which comes with its own issues

dionidium 5y ago
The price can even go lower than the cost to remediate the property for residency. This is a bit of a tail risk. This has never happened to most U.S. neighborhoods, but the risk is not zero. Getting loans to build on these lots is nearly impossible, which contributes to their continued decline.