3 ms·

The problem right now isn't construction capacity, it's zoning.

zjp 3y ago
(50% of the city is zoned for single family and the rest has height and density limits) "The market will not solve the housing crisis!" It's the 'stop hitting yourself' of housing policy.
- supertrope 3y ago
  When people don't know many facts about an issue but it affects them personally they rely on ideology to form opinions. e.g. They follow what other people on team red or team blue think. Or just apply a pre-conceived notion of regulation being the solution, or de-regulation being the solution. Hence you get counter-productive conclusions like new supply in the form of new luxury apartment construction being the cause of rent inflation.
  - zjp 3y ago
    This is true, mostly. I suspect SF and NYC NIMBYs know full well the legal limits of building in their respective cities.
- Dig1t 3y ago
  The dumb thing is that the market WOULD solve the problem if it was allowed to. We have a dysfunctional system with too many regulations but instead of the regulations getting blamed, the market gets the blame instead. And the problem never gets solved.
  - zjp 3y ago
    Just one more subsidy bro I promise it'll work this time
  - sofixa 3y ago
    > The dumb thing is that the market WOULD solve the problem if it was allowed to Not only do you not have a way of knowing that for sure, history would indicate otherwise. Housing is fundamentally a good with limited elasticity, therefore the market on it's own without a good dose of regulation could easily become disastrous. For a historical parallel, take a look at what happened in industrialising countries when the market was the one making decisions about housing where it was needed (next to the newly appearing factories/otherwise urbanising areas). The result was people living in horrifically cramped and squalid conditions (alongside other fun ones such as company towns) which was literally one of the main inspirations for socialism and communism. Regulations on housing are a must, but their impact needs to be carefully managed and offset with appropriate incentives, policies and subsidies to make sure housing is of good quality (nobody should live in asbestos and lead paint filled pods under a highway next to a chemical factory) but abundant.
    - zjp 3y ago
      "You're not allowed to build an apartment complex out of paper" regulations are not the main thing driving costs today. "You're not allowed to build an apartment at all" regulations are. End height and density restrictions.
      - sofixa 3y ago
        > End height and density restrictions. I'd go with relax over end, because surrounding infrastructure still needs to scale with the amount of people living there, and having very dense skyscrapers next to low height buildings is not great from an urbanist perspective; but there's nothing stopping most American cities from upzoning to 8-10 floors, and upgrading transit and city infrastructure to match the increased density (you're going to need more internet, water, sewer, electricity but nothing fundamentally unfixable).
        zjp 3y ago
        IMO, when we reach those limits if rents still don't tick downwards because the demand exceeds the market's ability to respond to it we're just going to go through another even more insufferable version of the argument I originally posted about except people will dig their heels in _even deeper_: "density didn't solve anything!" So that's why I'd go with 'end' personally. See: London.
jjav 3y ago
It's both though. People who have managed to maneuver all the bureaucracy and have approved plans in hand are having a hard time finding construction crews with any available time.
FooBarBizBazz 3y ago
At this point, I think civil disobedience is the solution. Uber fixed the taxi industry (and then started taking a cut for itself) by just flouting the law -- until it had a fait accompli that most people liked. The same thing will have to be done with housing, by people who have the resources to do it. The problem is, it's difficult for this to be a grassroots civil-disobedience thing. That's called building a favela. Though honestly that could work too. What the example of the favela (or, before that, the homeless camp) highlights is that property is as much about security (violence/force) as about construction. The camp can always be bulldozed. That's what a lack of property rights actually means, materially. I don't know how one provides security in a civilly-disobedient way.
- HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
  > I don't know how one provides security in a civilly-disobedient way. Are you sure about that?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- harambae 3y ago
  The closest thing I can think of to what you’re describing is the van life movement and sleeping overnight various places without permission. Or, taking it up a level, living in an RV somewhere in a gray area of legality or where there’s little enforcement (such as the RV’s on El Camino Real in Palo Alto)

zjp 3y ago

(50% of the city is zoned for single family and the rest has height and density limits) "The market will not solve the housing crisis!" It's the 'stop hitting yourself' of housing policy.

supertrope 3y ago
When people don't know many facts about an issue but it affects them personally they rely on ideology to form opinions. e.g. They follow what other people on team red or team blue think. Or just apply a pre-conceived notion of regulation being the solution, or de-regulation being the solution. Hence you get counter-productive conclusions like new supply in the form of new luxury apartment construction being the cause of rent inflation.
- zjp 3y ago
  This is true, mostly. I suspect SF and NYC NIMBYs know full well the legal limits of building in their respective cities.
Dig1t 3y ago
The dumb thing is that the market WOULD solve the problem if it was allowed to. We have a dysfunctional system with too many regulations but instead of the regulations getting blamed, the market gets the blame instead. And the problem never gets solved.
- zjp 3y ago
  Just one more subsidy bro I promise it'll work this time
- sofixa 3y ago
  > The dumb thing is that the market WOULD solve the problem if it was allowed to Not only do you not have a way of knowing that for sure, history would indicate otherwise. Housing is fundamentally a good with limited elasticity, therefore the market on it's own without a good dose of regulation could easily become disastrous. For a historical parallel, take a look at what happened in industrialising countries when the market was the one making decisions about housing where it was needed (next to the newly appearing factories/otherwise urbanising areas). The result was people living in horrifically cramped and squalid conditions (alongside other fun ones such as company towns) which was literally one of the main inspirations for socialism and communism. Regulations on housing are a must, but their impact needs to be carefully managed and offset with appropriate incentives, policies and subsidies to make sure housing is of good quality (nobody should live in asbestos and lead paint filled pods under a highway next to a chemical factory) but abundant.
  - zjp 3y ago
    "You're not allowed to build an apartment complex out of paper" regulations are not the main thing driving costs today. "You're not allowed to build an apartment at all" regulations are. End height and density restrictions.
    - sofixa 3y ago
      > End height and density restrictions. I'd go with relax over end, because surrounding infrastructure still needs to scale with the amount of people living there, and having very dense skyscrapers next to low height buildings is not great from an urbanist perspective; but there's nothing stopping most American cities from upzoning to 8-10 floors, and upgrading transit and city infrastructure to match the increased density (you're going to need more internet, water, sewer, electricity but nothing fundamentally unfixable).
      - zjp 3y ago
        IMO, when we reach those limits if rents still don't tick downwards because the demand exceeds the market's ability to respond to it we're just going to go through another even more insufferable version of the argument I originally posted about except people will dig their heels in _even deeper_: "density didn't solve anything!" So that's why I'd go with 'end' personally. See: London.

jjav 3y ago

It's both though. People who have managed to maneuver all the bureaucracy and have approved plans in hand are having a hard time finding construction crews with any available time.

FooBarBizBazz 3y ago

At this point, I think civil disobedience is the solution. Uber fixed the taxi industry (and then started taking a cut for itself) by just flouting the law -- until it had a fait accompli that most people liked. The same thing will have to be done with housing, by people who have the resources to do it. The problem is, it's difficult for this to be a grassroots civil-disobedience thing. That's called building a favela. Though honestly that could work too. What the example of the favela (or, before that, the homeless camp) highlights is that property is as much about security (violence/force) as about construction. The camp can always be bulldozed. That's what a lack of property rights actually means, materially. I don't know how one provides security in a civilly-disobedient way.

HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
> I don't know how one provides security in a civilly-disobedient way. Are you sure about that?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
harambae 3y ago
The closest thing I can think of to what you’re describing is the van life movement and sleeping overnight various places without permission. Or, taking it up a level, living in an RV somewhere in a gray area of legality or where there’s little enforcement (such as the RV’s on El Camino Real in Palo Alto)