4 ms·

> build more Clearly, higher density construction in NYC has dramatically reduce prices there. There is no amount of construction in the subset of 49 square m

> build more Clearly, higher density construction in NYC has dramatically reduce prices there. There is no amount of construction in the subset of 49 square miles trendies want to live that is going to solve this problem. There are a million 1%'ers from around the world that will snap up a $750K condo before you 5%'ers can get it.

potatolicious 13y ago
> "Clearly, higher density construction in NYC has dramatically reduce prices there." They have.[1] Or more accurately, they have prevented the exact sort of rent explosion that SF is experiencing now. Manhattan is expensive to live in - but rent prices are growing at predictable and relatively low rates. There are even desirable, wealthy neighborhoods where rents are slowly decreasing. The fact is also that artificially restricting oneself to Manhattan makes for a easier comparison to SF, but is not representative of the housing situation overall. Commuting from Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx into Manhattan is trivially easy, and rent (even if we strictly limit ourselves to the low-crime, desirable sections of these boroughs) is lower than SF. Take Brooklyn[2] for example. Plenty of good, safe neighborhoods with solid subway access where prices are flat. [1] http://www.mns.com/manhattan_rental_market_report http://www.mns.com/manhattan_rental_market_report [2] http://www.mns.com/brooklyn_rental_market_report http://www.mns.com/brooklyn_rental_market_report
- pchristensen 13y ago
  You'd have to include BART-accessible Oakland, Berkeley, etc in the East Bay to make that comparison fair. 40 min is the farthest any of the BART lines go from downtown SF.
bubbleRefuge 13y ago
Taxation can alleviate that. Provide tax relief to owner-occupants with children. Tax the shit out of non-occupant owners.
- nawitus 13y ago
  And why woulnd't that tax transfer to rent prices?
  - aet 13y ago
    It would transfer.

potatolicious 13y ago

> "Clearly, higher density construction in NYC has dramatically reduce prices there." They have.[1] Or more accurately, they have prevented the exact sort of rent explosion that SF is experiencing now. Manhattan is expensive to live in - but rent prices are growing at predictable and relatively low rates. There are even desirable, wealthy neighborhoods where rents are slowly decreasing. The fact is also that artificially restricting oneself to Manhattan makes for a easier comparison to SF, but is not representative of the housing situation overall. Commuting from Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx into Manhattan is trivially easy, and rent (even if we strictly limit ourselves to the low-crime, desirable sections of these boroughs) is lower than SF. Take Brooklyn[2] for example. Plenty of good, safe neighborhoods with solid subway access where prices are flat. [1] http://www.mns.com/manhattan_rental_market_report http://www.mns.com/manhattan_rental_market_report [2] http://www.mns.com/brooklyn_rental_market_report http://www.mns.com/brooklyn_rental_market_report

pchristensen 13y ago
You'd have to include BART-accessible Oakland, Berkeley, etc in the East Bay to make that comparison fair. 40 min is the farthest any of the BART lines go from downtown SF.

bubbleRefuge 13y ago

Taxation can alleviate that. Provide tax relief to owner-occupants with children. Tax the shit out of non-occupant owners.

nawitus 13y ago
And why woulnd't that tax transfer to rent prices?
- aet 13y ago
  It would transfer.