3 ms·

Furthermore, move out of the bay area, man! That's one of the most expensive places to live in the country! Whenever I see these articles, I think about what m

Furthermore, move out of the bay area, man! That's one of the most expensive places to live in the country! Whenever I see these articles, I think about what makes the Bay Area expensive. The key factor is housing prices. There's a limited amount of land available near the centers of SV because of mountains and natural areas. Supply is strictly constrained and demand is very strong because of industry growth. The result is spiraling prices far above what would seem reasonable elsewhere. Supply constraint isn't really a natural limit, though. Bay Area housing is spread out, low density, even sprawling. Even San Francisco is only half the density of Brooklyn. San Jose and San Mateo county mostly look like a suburb of Omaha. Market demand would indicate big profit opportunities for anyone who can buy up a subdivision and build a neighborhood of three story flats on wide sidewalks and two lane streets. That would be over double the density of San Francisco and ten times the density of a typical San Mateo subdivision. You could easily afford to buy up property, knock down current buildings and carry away a huge profit. But you can't get permission from planning boards. Or you could build like Tokyo, which is a little less dense than Brooklyn. You'd make free standing two or three story single family homes with very little yard on 15' single lane streets and small blocks. That's the same density as Brooklyn, 2.5 times San Francisco. Or you could even build like San Francisco, but in San Jose. That's efficient enough in land per housing unit to make big money. But it's all prohibited. The Bay Area has chosen to be unlivable and unpleasant by its choice of public officials. Those city officials have prohibited the practices that make city living affordable. The result of bad public officials is an unhappy public.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> The Bay Area has chosen to be unlivable and unpleasant by its choice of public officials. You seem to confuse "high density" with "livable" or "pleasant". I don't think that makes a lot of sense. > Those city officials have prohibited the practices that make city living affordable. San Francisco -- whose development policies you suggest would make San Jose more affordable -- is more expensive to live in than San Jose. Tokyo and New York City -- your other comparators for the Bay Area -- aren't exactly bastions of affordability. The profits for developers if your proposals were adopted are, of course, clear. The mechanism by which "affordable", "livable", or "pleasant" come out of them is far less clear.
- jedmeyers 13y ago
  I, for one, think that "low density" is exactly what makes Silicon Valley so nice and pleasant to live in.
- WildUtah 13y ago
  I've seen dense pleasant and unpleasant and rural pleasant and unpleasant and most possibilities in between. I don't mean to equate the one axis with the other. It is very challenging to build mid-density pleasant surroundings without making car traffic impossibly nasty, though. The DPZ architecture firm in Miami has proven that heroic effort can answer even that challenge. San Francisco is more expensive than San Jose because more people want to live in a city built like SF than one like SJ. Building more SF and less SJ style will make people happier and produce more housing per acre. Tokyo and New York City ... aren't exactly bastions of affordability Correlation isn't causation. The laws of supply and demand show that more supply will lower prices and less supply forces prices up. Building more quality higher density neighborhoods will make housing more affordable. Historically very desirable areas became expensive which led to denser construction so more people could afford them. Now the denser areas that were so desirable are often still desirable and still expensive. It wasn't the density that led to the expense, though; the density is mitigating the expense. There is a limit to what you can do with density to mitigate expense before things get unpleasant and Manhattan is near the limit. Tokyo is not. San Jose is nowhere near the limit.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > San Francisco is more expensive than San Jose because more people want to live in a city built like SF than one like SJ. No, its more expensive than SJ because it has a major port (driving commercial value) and substantial beachfront, and because groups attracted directly by those two things also, themselves, produce additional indirect demand. California communities with even one of these things that are built more like San Jose than San Francisco are often more expensive than San Jose -- and even can be more expensive than San Francisco. > Correlation isn't causation. But the absence of correlation is pretty clear disproof of causation. > The laws of supply and demand show that more supply will lower prices Sure, more housing supply will lower housing prices -- and the resulting increase in population will increase the demand for everything else that plays into affordability of living in the city. What do the laws of supply and demand say about that?
olefoo 13y ago
There is an opportunity for new types of thinking here. Turn Treasure Island into an arcology suitable to house a half-million people in style and comfort...

dragonwriter 13y ago

> The Bay Area has chosen to be unlivable and unpleasant by its choice of public officials. You seem to confuse "high density" with "livable" or "pleasant". I don't think that makes a lot of sense. > Those city officials have prohibited the practices that make city living affordable. San Francisco -- whose development policies you suggest would make San Jose more affordable -- is more expensive to live in than San Jose. Tokyo and New York City -- your other comparators for the Bay Area -- aren't exactly bastions of affordability. The profits for developers if your proposals were adopted are, of course, clear. The mechanism by which "affordable", "livable", or "pleasant" come out of them is far less clear.

jedmeyers 13y ago
I, for one, think that "low density" is exactly what makes Silicon Valley so nice and pleasant to live in.
WildUtah 13y ago
I've seen dense pleasant and unpleasant and rural pleasant and unpleasant and most possibilities in between. I don't mean to equate the one axis with the other. It is very challenging to build mid-density pleasant surroundings without making car traffic impossibly nasty, though. The DPZ architecture firm in Miami has proven that heroic effort can answer even that challenge. San Francisco is more expensive than San Jose because more people want to live in a city built like SF than one like SJ. Building more SF and less SJ style will make people happier and produce more housing per acre. Tokyo and New York City ... aren't exactly bastions of affordability Correlation isn't causation. The laws of supply and demand show that more supply will lower prices and less supply forces prices up. Building more quality higher density neighborhoods will make housing more affordable. Historically very desirable areas became expensive which led to denser construction so more people could afford them. Now the denser areas that were so desirable are often still desirable and still expensive. It wasn't the density that led to the expense, though; the density is mitigating the expense. There is a limit to what you can do with density to mitigate expense before things get unpleasant and Manhattan is near the limit. Tokyo is not. San Jose is nowhere near the limit.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > San Francisco is more expensive than San Jose because more people want to live in a city built like SF than one like SJ. No, its more expensive than SJ because it has a major port (driving commercial value) and substantial beachfront, and because groups attracted directly by those two things also, themselves, produce additional indirect demand. California communities with even one of these things that are built more like San Jose than San Francisco are often more expensive than San Jose -- and even can be more expensive than San Francisco. > Correlation isn't causation. But the absence of correlation is pretty clear disproof of causation. > The laws of supply and demand show that more supply will lower prices Sure, more housing supply will lower housing prices -- and the resulting increase in population will increase the demand for everything else that plays into affordability of living in the city. What do the laws of supply and demand say about that?

olefoo 13y ago

There is an opportunity for new types of thinking here. Turn Treasure Island into an arcology suitable to house a half-million people in style and comfort...