6 ms·

If demand picks up because supply increases, you will reach the previous equilibrium even with more supply. It isn’t rocket science, there is a price people are

If demand picks up because supply increases, you will reach the previous equilibrium even with more supply. It isn’t rocket science, there is a price people are willing to pay to live in SD, and the market will keep gravitating to that price unless demand is somehow limited. The price people are willing to pay can even increase as density makes brings in things (eg culture, job opportunities) that make the city more desirable (eg see Hong Kong).

tptacek 6mo ago
Supply increased, rents declined.
- seanmcdirmid 6mo ago
  Short term. Long term the market will change to equilibrium. If you are buying, just lock in lower housing prices now. If you are renting without rent control, you get one or two years of reasonable rates and then it will go nuts again.
  - nostrebored 6mo ago
    This is an obviously farcical belief. If everywhere built more housing do you think the price of housing would go up? Where are these people bringing up housing prices coming from?
    - bombcar 6mo ago
      Housing prices always go up (they seem to believe this) Houses can be built (this seems obvious) Ergo, we can remove the national debt by building between 59 million and 121 million houses (depending on if you count the value of the land there).
    - seanmcdirmid 6mo ago
      Buffalo has 50% as much housing now as it did at its peak, since demand dropped and housing was just razed rather than maintained. There are lots and lots of cities in the USA that aren’t San Diego, LA, SF, Portland, Seattle, NYC, Boston, … and they have plenty of supply that there is no demand for. You can buy a house for cheap in Toledo. For some reason, people would rather pay $3000/month to live in San Diego than $700/month to live in Buffalo or Toledo. It shouldn’t be a mystery why. I lived in Beijing for 9 years so I get a different perspective. But ya, the market for people who want to live in Beijing rather than Chengde or Langfang is surprisingly vast, and Beijing has a resident system to prevent at will migrations.
someperson 6mo ago
There a lot of desirable areas in a country and a fixed amount of people. The equilibrium between demand and supply has the supply curve impacted by a whole host of policy choices. Eg housing is impacted by cost of permitting, regulations, cost of materials and labor etc. All of these things can be improved by policy. There's a strong argument that especially infrastructure but housing should be built with people on work visas.
- seanmcdirmid 6mo ago
  Water is the primary limiter on city population sizes in the west. I wouldn’t be surprised if San Diego wasn’t at its limit already with respect to water resources, but I haven’t looked into it. Desalination could improve that. If we could have Chinese work crews come in and build housing, especially 30 story concrete towers that are popular in Asia, we could build fairly cheaply, that isn’t really the limitation (it’s easier to solve than getting water to those new units for expanded population).
  - someperson 6mo ago
    They thought Vegas was at it's limit years ago, but no they found efficiency upon efficiency.
  - littlexsparkee 6mo ago
    San Diego in fact has a surfeit that it's looking at selling off https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/17/climate/san-diego-water-sales-western-states.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/17/climate/san-diego-water-s...
darksaints 6mo ago
At the levels of density seen in Paris, San Diego could house 16 million people. That's city proper. The metro area could house 226 million people. You're gonna have to do a lot better job convincing me that 16 million people would move to San Diego if they just built more housing. Let alone 226 million.
- seanmcdirmid 6mo ago
  Twist do you think happens to every city that has reached 16 million people? Did they become more popular or less? Given that I’ve lived in a city of that size, my answer will differ from yours (they become more expensive, not less). I’m confused on why you think paris is affordable and San Diego metro could somehow have enough water to grow to 220 million. The nearest comparison I can think of is south China Bay Area population (87 million), and if you think that those cities are affordable…I’m guessing we really have to agree to disagree.
  - darksaints 6mo ago
    San Diego would be a very popular city at lower prices, but simply put there isn't enough population in the US to even think that demand could grow anywhere close to those levels. It would take a 50 year long gold rush, draining of other American cities, etc. The fastest growing city in modern history, Shenzen, grew 6000% in 30 years, and it could only do so because China simultaneously had the highest population growth in the world and the highest urbanization rate in the world. At some point, demand is saturated, and it takes an extremely delusional belief that demand can perpetually grow so that prices never drop. We have proof in the article that prices can drop with even moderately fast construction rates. Keep going.
  - Dylan16807 6mo ago
    > Twist do you think happens to every city that has reached 16 million people? It's not about the exact number, it's that one city is not going to 10x in population from getting the price of housing down to "still a city but not skyrocketing". > I’m confused on why you think paris is affordable Compared to San Diego, it does seem to be significantly more affordable, and mainly because of rent. > and San Diego metro could somehow have enough water The most expensive source of water, desalination, should be under $1 per day per person. And there's probably better options. > to grow to 220 million. That number is a silly number to explain density, not a proposal. > and if you think that those cities are affordable… No, the only comparison point was Paris, and the density of Paris.
verteu 6mo ago
No, this is a false belief known as supply skepticism: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=supply+skepticism&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=supp...
- LudwigNagasena 6mo ago
  Weird title for a paper that argues that "Government intervention is critical to ensure that supply is added at prices affordable to a range of incomes". I would personally classify that position as "supply skepticism".

tptacek 6mo ago

Supply increased, rents declined.

seanmcdirmid 6mo ago
Short term. Long term the market will change to equilibrium. If you are buying, just lock in lower housing prices now. If you are renting without rent control, you get one or two years of reasonable rates and then it will go nuts again.
- nostrebored 6mo ago
  This is an obviously farcical belief. If everywhere built more housing do you think the price of housing would go up? Where are these people bringing up housing prices coming from?
  - bombcar 6mo ago
    Housing prices always go up (they seem to believe this) Houses can be built (this seems obvious) Ergo, we can remove the national debt by building between 59 million and 121 million houses (depending on if you count the value of the land there).
  - seanmcdirmid 6mo ago
    Buffalo has 50% as much housing now as it did at its peak, since demand dropped and housing was just razed rather than maintained. There are lots and lots of cities in the USA that aren’t San Diego, LA, SF, Portland, Seattle, NYC, Boston, … and they have plenty of supply that there is no demand for. You can buy a house for cheap in Toledo. For some reason, people would rather pay $3000/month to live in San Diego than $700/month to live in Buffalo or Toledo. It shouldn’t be a mystery why. I lived in Beijing for 9 years so I get a different perspective. But ya, the market for people who want to live in Beijing rather than Chengde or Langfang is surprisingly vast, and Beijing has a resident system to prevent at will migrations.

someperson 6mo ago

There a lot of desirable areas in a country and a fixed amount of people. The equilibrium between demand and supply has the supply curve impacted by a whole host of policy choices. Eg housing is impacted by cost of permitting, regulations, cost of materials and labor etc. All of these things can be improved by policy. There's a strong argument that especially infrastructure but housing should be built with people on work visas.

seanmcdirmid 6mo ago
Water is the primary limiter on city population sizes in the west. I wouldn’t be surprised if San Diego wasn’t at its limit already with respect to water resources, but I haven’t looked into it. Desalination could improve that. If we could have Chinese work crews come in and build housing, especially 30 story concrete towers that are popular in Asia, we could build fairly cheaply, that isn’t really the limitation (it’s easier to solve than getting water to those new units for expanded population).
- someperson 6mo ago
  They thought Vegas was at it's limit years ago, but no they found efficiency upon efficiency.
- littlexsparkee 6mo ago
  San Diego in fact has a surfeit that it's looking at selling off https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/17/climate/san-diego-water-sales-western-states.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/17/climate/san-diego-water-s...

darksaints 6mo ago

At the levels of density seen in Paris, San Diego could house 16 million people. That's city proper. The metro area could house 226 million people. You're gonna have to do a lot better job convincing me that 16 million people would move to San Diego if they just built more housing. Let alone 226 million.

seanmcdirmid 6mo ago
Twist do you think happens to every city that has reached 16 million people? Did they become more popular or less? Given that I’ve lived in a city of that size, my answer will differ from yours (they become more expensive, not less). I’m confused on why you think paris is affordable and San Diego metro could somehow have enough water to grow to 220 million. The nearest comparison I can think of is south China Bay Area population (87 million), and if you think that those cities are affordable…I’m guessing we really have to agree to disagree.
- darksaints 6mo ago
  San Diego would be a very popular city at lower prices, but simply put there isn't enough population in the US to even think that demand could grow anywhere close to those levels. It would take a 50 year long gold rush, draining of other American cities, etc. The fastest growing city in modern history, Shenzen, grew 6000% in 30 years, and it could only do so because China simultaneously had the highest population growth in the world and the highest urbanization rate in the world. At some point, demand is saturated, and it takes an extremely delusional belief that demand can perpetually grow so that prices never drop. We have proof in the article that prices can drop with even moderately fast construction rates. Keep going.
- Dylan16807 6mo ago
  > Twist do you think happens to every city that has reached 16 million people? It's not about the exact number, it's that one city is not going to 10x in population from getting the price of housing down to "still a city but not skyrocketing". > I’m confused on why you think paris is affordable Compared to San Diego, it does seem to be significantly more affordable, and mainly because of rent. > and San Diego metro could somehow have enough water The most expensive source of water, desalination, should be under $1 per day per person. And there's probably better options. > to grow to 220 million. That number is a silly number to explain density, not a proposal. > and if you think that those cities are affordable… No, the only comparison point was Paris, and the density of Paris.

verteu 6mo ago

No, this is a false belief known as supply skepticism: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=supply+skepticism&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=supp...

LudwigNagasena 6mo ago
Weird title for a paper that argues that "Government intervention is critical to ensure that supply is added at prices affordable to a range of incomes". I would personally classify that position as "supply skepticism".