4 ms·

No amount of money will help jurisdictions that still refuse to permit new buildings in face of a constant influx of people. You cannot live in Musk's banking

No amount of money will help jurisdictions that still refuse to permit new buildings in face of a constant influx of people. You cannot live in Musk's banking account. You have to have the actual physical structure, and current laws in hotspots like San Francisco and New York do their utmost to prevent new development. Places like Austin, which are less restrictive, don't have this problem.

Arodex 4mo ago
But even if/when the law finally allows more building, you will have to compete with a richer, and richer, and richer upper-upper-upper class - both people and firms - who will price you out.
- ecshafer 4mo ago
  The rich only buy so many homes. Its close to a pigeon hole problem. If there are 10 houses and 11 people, the homes are going to go up in price until the 11th is homeless (or moving away to somewhere cheaper). If there are 100 people, its the same issue except magnified, this is what happened in the bay area. Significantly more people than homes. But if there are 100 homes and 10 people, it doesn't matter how rich they are, the prices will drop because there is less demand. It will also be less attractive as an investment vehicle, because they will demand less rent.
  - Arodex 4mo ago
    >The rich only buy so many homes Oh, don't worry, they also buy land to build luxury condos for the upper-upper class - that can't buy but can still pay rent. >But if there are 100 homes and 10 people, it doesn't matter how rich they are, the prices will drop because there is less demand No, the price won't drop. The market is extremely inelastic. These homes are collateral for other investments of the super-super-super rich (people or organisations). It is better to keep them vacant rather than drop their value by lowering the rent, which would cascade to their leveraged investment. This is why: - rents only go down when there is a big generalized financial crisis, otherwise they never go down. The best that used to happen was that rent stayed stagnant while wages rise, but that isn't happening... - you see so many empty appartements and retail spaces everywhere. I mean, there a a HN front-page story about vacant spaces a day ago. You should read it.
mamonster 4mo ago
>You cannot live in Musk's banking account. You have to have the actual physical structure, and current laws in hotspots like San Francisco and New York do their utmost to prevent new development. >Places like Austin, which are less restrictive, don't have this problem. Not really fair to compare 2 cities on the waterfront with no obvious space to build over to a city in the middle of Texas. San Francisco is even worse than New York(IMO) because of the hills.
- reducesuffering 4mo ago
  We've had the technology to build skyscrapers for over 100 years. They're illegal in 90% of the city
  - supertrope 4mo ago
    We don't even need skyscrapers to relieve the housing shortage. Legalizing duplexes, townhome, quadplexes, condos, or three story buildings that contain six units would add a lot of supply.
  - Arodex 4mo ago
    Few people want to live in sterile skyscrapers.
    - inglor_cz 4mo ago
      What about subjecting this theory to a practical experiment? In many places of the world, the skyscrapers are full, and the people who move there leave behind another apartment for those who don't want to live in a skyscraper.
  - mamonster 4mo ago
    >We've had the technology to build skyscrapers for over 100 years. They're illegal in 90% of the city Not a great idea for coastline cities. Will cause soil to sink and the more you build the faster it goes.
greenie_beans 4mo ago
housing is expensive everywhere, not just in SF and NYC. def expensive in Austin. how do the zoning laws in SF make NYC more expensive?
- reducesuffering 4mo ago
  Housing in SF and NYC are on some level substitute goods. Many of the people living there are mobile and the ones deciding prices on the margin. If SF rent was $10k and NYC was $3k, many are going to leave SF to get a similar type of lifestyle in NYC for cheaper, raising demand for NYC housing. If SF zoning laws allowed building an incredible amount of housing, lowering rents to $2k, while NYC is at $4k, many people would leave NYC, lower housing demand and thus rents, to get a similar urban lifestyle in SF. This is the whole crux of why NIMBY is such a collective problem. When NYC doesn't build because SF should, when SF doesn't build because the Bay Area should, when the Bay Area shouldn't build because Texas should, everyone collectively pays higher prices because overall housing supply is reduced and many people move between them.
  - greenie_beans 4mo ago
    yeah i don't think NYC people are gonna leave SF for NYC. those are two totally different cities with different experiences and different culture. you can live an urban lifestyle in all 50 states btw
    - reducesuffering 4mo ago
      Not everyone, not even a majority, but many people would trade their ideal urban lifestyle for a different urban lifestyle if it came at a significant housing price discount. We already see this across the country, even in non-urban preferences, where cheap housing in Arizona, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, and Florida are attracting the most significant portions of migrations, not due to their superior lifestyle, but because housing, and consequently other things, are much more affordable

Arodex 4mo ago

But even if/when the law finally allows more building, you will have to compete with a richer, and richer, and richer upper-upper-upper class - both people and firms - who will price you out.

ecshafer 4mo ago
The rich only buy so many homes. Its close to a pigeon hole problem. If there are 10 houses and 11 people, the homes are going to go up in price until the 11th is homeless (or moving away to somewhere cheaper). If there are 100 people, its the same issue except magnified, this is what happened in the bay area. Significantly more people than homes. But if there are 100 homes and 10 people, it doesn't matter how rich they are, the prices will drop because there is less demand. It will also be less attractive as an investment vehicle, because they will demand less rent.
- Arodex 4mo ago
  >The rich only buy so many homes Oh, don't worry, they also buy land to build luxury condos for the upper-upper class - that can't buy but can still pay rent. >But if there are 100 homes and 10 people, it doesn't matter how rich they are, the prices will drop because there is less demand No, the price won't drop. The market is extremely inelastic. These homes are collateral for other investments of the super-super-super rich (people or organisations). It is better to keep them vacant rather than drop their value by lowering the rent, which would cascade to their leveraged investment. This is why: - rents only go down when there is a big generalized financial crisis, otherwise they never go down. The best that used to happen was that rent stayed stagnant while wages rise, but that isn't happening... - you see so many empty appartements and retail spaces everywhere. I mean, there a a HN front-page story about vacant spaces a day ago. You should read it.

mamonster 4mo ago

>You cannot live in Musk's banking account. You have to have the actual physical structure, and current laws in hotspots like San Francisco and New York do their utmost to prevent new development. >Places like Austin, which are less restrictive, don't have this problem. Not really fair to compare 2 cities on the waterfront with no obvious space to build over to a city in the middle of Texas. San Francisco is even worse than New York(IMO) because of the hills.

reducesuffering 4mo ago
We've had the technology to build skyscrapers for over 100 years. They're illegal in 90% of the city
- supertrope 4mo ago
  We don't even need skyscrapers to relieve the housing shortage. Legalizing duplexes, townhome, quadplexes, condos, or three story buildings that contain six units would add a lot of supply.
- Arodex 4mo ago
  Few people want to live in sterile skyscrapers.
  - inglor_cz 4mo ago
    What about subjecting this theory to a practical experiment? In many places of the world, the skyscrapers are full, and the people who move there leave behind another apartment for those who don't want to live in a skyscraper.
- mamonster 4mo ago
  >We've had the technology to build skyscrapers for over 100 years. They're illegal in 90% of the city Not a great idea for coastline cities. Will cause soil to sink and the more you build the faster it goes.

greenie_beans 4mo ago

housing is expensive everywhere, not just in SF and NYC. def expensive in Austin. how do the zoning laws in SF make NYC more expensive?

reducesuffering 4mo ago
Housing in SF and NYC are on some level substitute goods. Many of the people living there are mobile and the ones deciding prices on the margin. If SF rent was $10k and NYC was $3k, many are going to leave SF to get a similar type of lifestyle in NYC for cheaper, raising demand for NYC housing. If SF zoning laws allowed building an incredible amount of housing, lowering rents to $2k, while NYC is at $4k, many people would leave NYC, lower housing demand and thus rents, to get a similar urban lifestyle in SF. This is the whole crux of why NIMBY is such a collective problem. When NYC doesn't build because SF should, when SF doesn't build because the Bay Area should, when the Bay Area shouldn't build because Texas should, everyone collectively pays higher prices because overall housing supply is reduced and many people move between them.
- greenie_beans 4mo ago
  yeah i don't think NYC people are gonna leave SF for NYC. those are two totally different cities with different experiences and different culture. you can live an urban lifestyle in all 50 states btw
  - reducesuffering 4mo ago
    Not everyone, not even a majority, but many people would trade their ideal urban lifestyle for a different urban lifestyle if it came at a significant housing price discount. We already see this across the country, even in non-urban preferences, where cheap housing in Arizona, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, and Florida are attracting the most significant portions of migrations, not due to their superior lifestyle, but because housing, and consequently other things, are much more affordable