5 ms·

Coastal cities aren't expensive because of bad housing policy (though they certainly have that). They're expensive because lots of highly economically productiv

by scarmig 11y ago

Coastal cities aren't expensive because of bad housing policy (though they certainly have that). They're expensive because lots of highly economically productive people and companies are located in them.

a3voices 11y ago
I disagree. They're expensive because there's not enough high rises that would provide tons more housing space.
- scarmig 11y ago
  Which has more high rises: Buffalo or NYC? I'd argue you're mostly getting cause and effect backwards: places end up with lots of high rises because they're the most economically productive localities. Obviously at the margin another high rise will lower prices a bit, but the rate at which we'd be able to build them in SF sans restrictions would at most keep prices stable year-on-year. Which isn't nothing, but it's important to be clear that no one making, say, $80k a year will ever be able to purchase a house or condo in San Francisco, regardless of our policy choices.
  - zck 11y ago
    >...the rate at which we'd be able to build them in SF sans restrictions would at most keep prices stable year-on-year. Do you have any citations for this? It's unexpected to me. What's the limiting factor?
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - mrkurt 11y ago
    There are lots of places either similarly, or more dense than San Francisco with housing people can buy on an $80k salary. All of these places allow for higher density housing. Sure SF is way behind the curve at this point, but it's a bit silly to argue that "policy debt" is a reason policy changes wouldn't do much.
    - brewdad 11y ago
      In many of those places, $80K salary places you 2x above the median. Not so in SF.
moistgorilla 11y ago
It's both but not having new housing built is definitely not helping
hueving 11y ago
Housing follows the laws of supply and demand like everything else. Cities with lots of jobs draw in migrant workers. Cities that raise minimum wage bring in more workers from neighboring areas with lower wages. Those people need a place to live.
- throwaway1979 11y ago
  Housing should follow the normal economic laws but it doesn't seem to. Part of it is regulation, and part of it is an odd kind of scarcity. If there were no housing regulations, I'm sure you' get a lot of new housing in the Bay area and people would live in there (despite it being potentially unsafe). Heck .. I was actually entertaining the live-in-a-container option :-p I'm still struggling to understand the scarcity aspect of housing. Supply of land isn't increasing so you'd think the asset would increase in price over time. That said, population isn't growing that much - prices in a city like Toronto have reached epic proportions fueled by a combination of speculation and foreign investment. To me, the problem lies in the fact that we are living in a highly leveraged economy. Will that ever stop? Doesn't seem like it.
  - hueving 11y ago
    You seem to be fundamentally ignoring the simplicity of supply and demand. If people could offer container housing legally, they would. However, they can't so the supply of legal housing is constrained. This drives the price up. The same applies to any protectionist laws the greater fuckwad property owners in the area introduce. Nobody wants to see their property value diluted so they vote against every single housing measure as long as the demand is there.
- EliRivers 11y ago
  Housing follows the laws of supply and demand like everything else. Certainly not like everything else. The demand for housing is a function of (amongst other things) how easily people can borrow the money to pay for one, how much the interest on that debt is, and what they guess is going to happen to prices in the future. Under simple primary school "supply and demand" economic theory, increasing price leads to a reduction in demand, but it's common to see increases in house prices lead to increases in demand, and vice-versa. To simply say that housing follows supply and demand is such a simplified view that it's more wrong than right.

by scarmig 11y ago

a3voices 11y ago

I disagree. They're expensive because there's not enough high rises that would provide tons more housing space.

scarmig 11y ago
Which has more high rises: Buffalo or NYC? I'd argue you're mostly getting cause and effect backwards: places end up with lots of high rises because they're the most economically productive localities. Obviously at the margin another high rise will lower prices a bit, but the rate at which we'd be able to build them in SF sans restrictions would at most keep prices stable year-on-year. Which isn't nothing, but it's important to be clear that no one making, say, $80k a year will ever be able to purchase a house or condo in San Francisco, regardless of our policy choices.
- zck 11y ago
  >...the rate at which we'd be able to build them in SF sans restrictions would at most keep prices stable year-on-year. Do you have any citations for this? It's unexpected to me. What's the limiting factor?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- mrkurt 11y ago
  There are lots of places either similarly, or more dense than San Francisco with housing people can buy on an $80k salary. All of these places allow for higher density housing. Sure SF is way behind the curve at this point, but it's a bit silly to argue that "policy debt" is a reason policy changes wouldn't do much.
  - brewdad 11y ago
    In many of those places, $80K salary places you 2x above the median. Not so in SF.

moistgorilla 11y ago

It's both but not having new housing built is definitely not helping

hueving 11y ago

Housing follows the laws of supply and demand like everything else. Cities with lots of jobs draw in migrant workers. Cities that raise minimum wage bring in more workers from neighboring areas with lower wages. Those people need a place to live.

throwaway1979 11y ago
Housing should follow the normal economic laws but it doesn't seem to. Part of it is regulation, and part of it is an odd kind of scarcity. If there were no housing regulations, I'm sure you' get a lot of new housing in the Bay area and people would live in there (despite it being potentially unsafe). Heck .. I was actually entertaining the live-in-a-container option :-p I'm still struggling to understand the scarcity aspect of housing. Supply of land isn't increasing so you'd think the asset would increase in price over time. That said, population isn't growing that much - prices in a city like Toronto have reached epic proportions fueled by a combination of speculation and foreign investment. To me, the problem lies in the fact that we are living in a highly leveraged economy. Will that ever stop? Doesn't seem like it.
- hueving 11y ago
  You seem to be fundamentally ignoring the simplicity of supply and demand. If people could offer container housing legally, they would. However, they can't so the supply of legal housing is constrained. This drives the price up. The same applies to any protectionist laws the greater fuckwad property owners in the area introduce. Nobody wants to see their property value diluted so they vote against every single housing measure as long as the demand is there.
EliRivers 11y ago
Housing follows the laws of supply and demand like everything else. Certainly not like everything else. The demand for housing is a function of (amongst other things) how easily people can borrow the money to pay for one, how much the interest on that debt is, and what they guess is going to happen to prices in the future. Under simple primary school "supply and demand" economic theory, increasing price leads to a reduction in demand, but it's common to see increases in house prices lead to increases in demand, and vice-versa. To simply say that housing follows supply and demand is such a simplified view that it's more wrong than right.