3 ms·

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.

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?
- eqdw 13y ago
  > 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? Yep. You're exactly right. Population is increasing, driving demand, raising prices. Problem is, population will continue to increase for the projected future. Since it's unconstitutional to prevent people from moving somewhere, this needs to be accommodated. Building more housing will induce demand. But it will also mitigate against a future where growing demand and fixed supply raise rents even more. The _ONLY_ way to substantively lower rents is to increase supply or decrease demand. Nothing else will solve this. And for what it's worth, rent is about 65% of my monthly budget; lowering rents would substantially increase affordability/cost of living in this area

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?

eqdw 13y ago
> 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? Yep. You're exactly right. Population is increasing, driving demand, raising prices. Problem is, population will continue to increase for the projected future. Since it's unconstitutional to prevent people from moving somewhere, this needs to be accommodated. Building more housing will induce demand. But it will also mitigate against a future where growing demand and fixed supply raise rents even more. The _ONLY_ way to substantively lower rents is to increase supply or decrease demand. Nothing else will solve this. And for what it's worth, rent is about 65% of my monthly budget; lowering rents would substantially increase affordability/cost of living in this area