"You can't just hand-wave away red tape as a factor...in most markets building cost approximates housing cost but in SF housing cost is 140% above base housing

"You can't just hand-wave away red tape as a factor...in most markets building cost approximates housing cost but in SF housing cost is 140% above base housing costs. That is the cost of zoning and other red tape." I read the whole article. The source she cites for that factoid is an article that excludes apartments from its analysis. It deals only with single-family housing. Oops: http://www.nber.org/papers/w8835.pdf?new_window=1 http://www.nber.org/papers/w8835.pdf?new_window=1 I've also read a whole bunch of other stuff on it, and it doesn't agree with the assertion. An example of what architects and developers have to say about it: http://markasaurus.com/2013/10/22/why-can%E2%80%99t-developers-build-housing-in-san-francisco-for-the-people-who-need-it-most-instead-of-for-the-rich/ http://markasaurus.com/2013/10/22/why-can%E2%80%99t-develope... The biggest consistent complaint that I read from developers is subsidy for low-income housing, which is onerous, but still only 12%. This guy suggests that average bureaucratic costs are ~30%. "where do you think the people occupying those shiny new market-price rentals would go if they were not there, I'm guessing not Oakland..." The article has a table that points out that SF has built something like 200% of the anticipated demand for high-end construction. If that's to be believed, the answer is: they'd be just as empty as they are today.