4 ms·

>When building policies are reasonable developers target wider swaths of the market. The only guarantee one has is that developers will build what generates th

>When building policies are reasonable developers target wider swaths of the market. The only guarantee one has is that developers will build what generates the most profit for them. That's basic economics. If the most profit is found in housing for locals, then locals get housing. If it's in pied-à-terres, then they don't.

fennecfoxen 11y ago
Well, the impact is variable, though. If people are buying pied-à-terres out of the existing housing stock anyway, consolidating them into new luxury condos downtown makes those apartments available to regular renters. Even if some new luxury apartments are pied-à-terres which would not be in SF in the absence of new construction, if some are actually occupied then rents for the city in general will also benefit. (New downtown high-rises with super-fancy penthouses can easily have many real residents on the lower floors.)
Kalium 11y ago
And when developers are allowed to build for the whole market, they will build first for the top... and then for everyone else once the high end is exhausted. The demand there is not infinite. It's not even close to infinite. It only seems that way sometimes in SF because there is literal decades of pent-up demand that needs to be satisfied, resulting in people willing to pay quite high prices.
- mtviewdave 11y ago
  >The demand there is not infinite. It's not even close to infinite. Neither is the supply of land. The question is, can San Francisco build enough to satisfy this demand, without replacing so much of the existing housing stock that San Francisco doesn't look like San Francisco any more? I don't know. And maybe it's not important. Cities do evolve, after all. But I do think the question needs to be asked, and debated.
  - Kalium 11y ago
    The question is old. It's been asked. It's been debated. Both question and debate were old when both of us were young. The answer is: yes. The heart of San Francisco lives not in a brick or a stone or a board, but in the hearts of San Franciscans. Gold in peace, iron in war.

fennecfoxen 11y ago

Well, the impact is variable, though. If people are buying pied-à-terres out of the existing housing stock anyway, consolidating them into new luxury condos downtown makes those apartments available to regular renters. Even if some new luxury apartments are pied-à-terres which would not be in SF in the absence of new construction, if some are actually occupied then rents for the city in general will also benefit. (New downtown high-rises with super-fancy penthouses can easily have many real residents on the lower floors.)

Kalium 11y ago

And when developers are allowed to build for the whole market, they will build first for the top... and then for everyone else once the high end is exhausted. The demand there is not infinite. It's not even close to infinite. It only seems that way sometimes in SF because there is literal decades of pent-up demand that needs to be satisfied, resulting in people willing to pay quite high prices.

mtviewdave 11y ago
>The demand there is not infinite. It's not even close to infinite. Neither is the supply of land. The question is, can San Francisco build enough to satisfy this demand, without replacing so much of the existing housing stock that San Francisco doesn't look like San Francisco any more? I don't know. And maybe it's not important. Cities do evolve, after all. But I do think the question needs to be asked, and debated.
- Kalium 11y ago
  The question is old. It's been asked. It's been debated. Both question and debate were old when both of us were young. The answer is: yes. The heart of San Francisco lives not in a brick or a stone or a board, but in the hearts of San Franciscans. Gold in peace, iron in war.