3 ms·

> Increasing the supply of housing (by changing zoning rules) would tend to reduce the market rate for housing in SF. This is not necessarily true. Housing pri

> Increasing the supply of housing (by changing zoning rules) would tend to reduce the market rate for housing in SF. This is not necessarily true. Housing prices don't fall uniformly in an area as more units become available, so existing residents may still be displaced. Also, more people may move from elsewhere to fill the vacancies provided by new units, driving higher prices for new units and making an area unaffordable for existing residents.

fancyketchup 13y ago
> Housing prices don't fall uniformly in an area as more units become available, so existing residents may still be displaced. This is true, but you need to consider the supply and demand for housing in aggregate. You also need to consider how one type of housing can substitute for another. Building luxury condos (for example) doesn't immediately help middle and lower-middle class renters. However, the condo could appeal to highly-paid software engineers who would have otherwise rented an expensive but basic. That reduces demand for basic apartments, which puts downward pressure on prices for those units. It's not the same effect as just building a bunch of basic apartments, but it still helps more than doing nothing. > Also, more people may move from elsewhere to fill the vacancies provided by new units, driving higher prices for new units and making an area unaffordable for existing residents. This doesn't really make any sense at all. You're saying that rising rents encourage people to move to move to SF. If anything, rising rents will tend to discourage people from moving to SF for a tech job. Sure, the salary is high, but why bother if you're going have less left over after paying rent? Look, it's not valid to say that people are perfectly rational, uniform, black spheres. People make irrational decisions all the time. But nobody says to him/herself, "I'd like to move to New York next year because the cost of living is so high." Building more housing units will result in more people living in SF, but it will also reduce the cost of living in SF compared to--and this part is important--what it would have otherwise been.

fancyketchup 13y ago

> Housing prices don't fall uniformly in an area as more units become available, so existing residents may still be displaced. This is true, but you need to consider the supply and demand for housing in aggregate. You also need to consider how one type of housing can substitute for another. Building luxury condos (for example) doesn't immediately help middle and lower-middle class renters. However, the condo could appeal to highly-paid software engineers who would have otherwise rented an expensive but basic. That reduces demand for basic apartments, which puts downward pressure on prices for those units. It's not the same effect as just building a bunch of basic apartments, but it still helps more than doing nothing. > Also, more people may move from elsewhere to fill the vacancies provided by new units, driving higher prices for new units and making an area unaffordable for existing residents. This doesn't really make any sense at all. You're saying that rising rents encourage people to move to move to SF. If anything, rising rents will tend to discourage people from moving to SF for a tech job. Sure, the salary is high, but why bother if you're going have less left over after paying rent? Look, it's not valid to say that people are perfectly rational, uniform, black spheres. People make irrational decisions all the time. But nobody says to him/herself, "I'd like to move to New York next year because the cost of living is so high." Building more housing units will result in more people living in SF, but it will also reduce the cost of living in SF compared to--and this part is important--what it would have otherwise been.