4 ms·

(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

by 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
        > "density didn't solve anything!" It's worth asking, does density solve high cost? Is there evidence for that? The first reaction is sure, supply and demand. Dense means more supply thus lower cost. But density also brings induced demand. Where are these very dense cities that are also very cheap? The two densest cities in the USA are NYC and SF. Neither is known for cheap housing.
        zjp 3y ago
        Well, in 1920 to live in Midtown you would have had to be able to drop $3m ($55m inflation adjusted) for a ground-level mansion and now you can get an apartment there for under $1m, so I would say the cost has dropped precipitously over the past hundred years. Demand is only induced when you give the thing away for free.

by 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
        > "density didn't solve anything!" It's worth asking, does density solve high cost? Is there evidence for that? The first reaction is sure, supply and demand. Dense means more supply thus lower cost. But density also brings induced demand. Where are these very dense cities that are also very cheap? The two densest cities in the USA are NYC and SF. Neither is known for cheap housing.
        zjp 3y ago
        Well, in 1920 to live in Midtown you would have had to be able to drop $3m ($55m inflation adjusted) for a ground-level mansion and now you can get an apartment there for under $1m, so I would say the cost has dropped precipitously over the past hundred years. Demand is only induced when you give the thing away for free.