3 ms·

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.