Hacker News Reader

Comment by lukeschlather | Hacker News Reader

Like a lot of Silicon Valley's problems, this really comes down to unreasonable height restrictions. When you have to choose between a 3000 sq.ft. restaurant and 3000 sq.ft. office space, the offices can pay better.

If the city would let people build large office towers they could put restaurants on the ground floor and this choice wouldn't have to happen.

View on HN

The city's usually just responding to property owners lobbying to restrict the supply of their scarce asset in order to maintain/drive up its value.

This is what's going on in London (note that the list of supporters including property-owning associations, property developers and hedge funders):

http://www.skylinecampaign.org/

Politically it's easier to throw sand in the wheels of new projects than it is to propose new projects, which is why this remains an effective way of lobbying.

I don't think that's an accurate description of the situation in London. There is almost unbridled development at the moment. It's going to markedly change how the city looks and feels. That's what people are reacting against.

Give London residents a choice between 400 pounds a month off their rent+reducing shop/restaurant prices and avoiding high rises changing the "aesthetic" and I'll guarantee the outcome of that poll.

This is not driven in any sense by democracy. Quite the opposite.

Are there any credible development projects I can support that will reduce my rent by £400/month?

Not right now. Sadiq Khan seems completely comfortable talking about the housing crisis and not doing anything about it, and he's pretty much the only one who can.

If they announced (credibly) that they were going to build 75,000-150,000 new council housing units each year, house prices and rents would start to plunge.

If that were to happen they would have to be high rises and would be fought by the skyline campaign.

Sadiq Khan couldn't credibly announce that he was building 75,000-150,000 new council housing units each year because the money's just not there - that would cost tens of billions of pounds a year and his entire budget is only 11 billion (spent mostly on public transport and policing). It's also outside his area of responsibility; housing is handled by borough councils in London, and they don't have the money either.

A single "hedge fund founder" = "hedge funders"?

This is a very broad accusation, but certainly most hedge funds I know are based in Mayfair, where almost all property is owned by the Duchy of Westminster. Of the top of my head I don't know any hedge funds who own their own office space in London (I'm sure they must exist).

Hedge funds as a group would almost certainly be able on average to lower their rent if there was more property development.

It isn't about whom they rent their offices from. It's about what they have in their portfolios.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com