A list of propositions and legislation to support (SF, Brisbane, Mountain View, the CA state legislature) can be found here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14195301
Not saying that the housing supply isn't excessively restricted, but how much can restrictions be decreased and how much difference would it make?
An analogy is building freeways to relieve traffic congestion. What regularly happens is that additional roads or adding lanes to existing roads provides temporary respite from traffic jams. But before too long the roads are jam-packed again, the problem isn't solved, just have more cars clogging traffic.
I suspect adding more housing won't lower housing prices, just bring some more people into the area. BTW this is what's happening here in Portland OR, where a building boom has been going on for years. The area population has increased, housing prices are still out of range for many people.
Isn't that a good thing, indicating greater economic activity?
The argument is, if the traffic is just going to expand to fill the new roads we build, then why not build more densely instead and help people have shorter commutes. Also some arguments around vicious cycles of building more roads, leading to more traffic, leading to demand for more, bigger roads, etc, vs. supporting biking/walking/public transit
Yes, it can; SF built 5,000 units last year, a record, and rents and owner move-in evictions finally declined. At the very least, building more housing can prevent further large price rises.
> BTW this is what's happening here in Portland OR, where a building boom has been going on for years. The area population has increased, housing prices are still out of range for many people.
The question is what would happen if you didn't build the housing. I contend that the people moving in would outbid everyone for the existing housing stock, which would drive rent increases even more than rents are currently going up. It may be that the new housing is just keeping things at a base level.
Flipped on its head the logic here doesn't really make sense; destroying existing housing stock would be disastrous for rents and prices, it makes sense that building more would help prevent increases.
I think an issue is building new housing attracts an influx of population up to the point that housing is not too expensive, keeping the average price point about the same. Conversely, outflux of population would cause prices to plummet, which has happened in the past during recessions and high unemployment. In effect, housing stocks then are reduced by being removed from the market, but that's not exactly healthy for the community either.
> I contend that the people moving in would outbid everyone for the existing housing stock, which would drive rent increases even more than rents are currently going up.
That's possible, but unless people moving in are much wealthier than the people already there, the price could only rise a certain amount before no one could afford it and sales would fall off. That's similar to certain (expensive) condo prices around here, but still seems there's a ceiling effect.
Your comment inspires me to talk with some real estate folks I know, it's been a while since getting their perspective on the market.
You got this backwards: we build housing for the influx of population. People don't move to new places just to get a new house. They move for economic reasons, like they got a $150k software dev job in SF & don't want to commute 90 minutes each way, or they got evicted so the landlord could double/triple the rent.
Regardless of whether SF builds now housing stock or not, the population influx is already happening and has been happening for the last 10 years. The issue is, new, wealthier residents are pulling the market up and forcing existing, lower-income residents out to the periphery of the Bay Area.
but this should drive those who receive low income out of state, and thus lower the amount of worker available for low-income jobs, which in turn should drive up the wage?
It's more likely that they would move to unregulated housing or live on the streets.
On another note, I (as a visitor) always figured the most visible effect of the dearth of affordable housing was the ridiculously early time the city shuts down. Madrid is the city I've spent the most time in, and there SF shutdown time would be right in the middle of, or before, dinner! I just figured that the early closing time facilitates closing up, cleaning, and getting home before the transit shuts down since no one working in restaurants or nightlife could afford to live in the city. I'm sure I'm not the first one to suggest that: is that theory generally discounted/disproven?
As a counter-example, Manhattan is an atypically late night city for the US [that also has very high housing prices]. You could argue that it also has 24 hour mass transit to cheaper areas. But, in general, tons of US cities that shutdown fairly early have low housing prices.
With the same situation, but a 30 minute commute and a 24h transport system and staff happy to get home around the same time, you could set the closing time at 10:30-11pm.
> tons of US cities that shutdown fairly early have low housing prices
Ah, are they low-density? I have lived places with very fast commutes and low property prices that would shut down by 7pm, since it was deep in the country and thus there was stuff-all foot traffic once people stopped working.
I can't substantiate this, but it seems that there is a small number of US cities where it is difficult to have cars, and easy enough to use transit, that driving is prohibitive for people in these low-paying jobs. I say this having grown up in a rural area where having many cars around a home was a reliable sign of poverty, not wealth. In most US cities the amount of cheap or free parking is staggering.
A lot of them are now being torn down.
I'm not an authority on why, but I believe they tended to be crime and drug hot spots. I have also read of various health problems being associated with them (both physical + mental).
From the photos alone I can smell the odor of alcohol and feel the depression and suicide looming in the air.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_r...
I'm curious about this - do you have some data? Not that I doubt it's true, I'm simply interested in how one would quantify this kinda thing.
http://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/seattles-re...
Though admittedly Seattle is smaller than Amsterdam. I expected it to be bigger (because Amsterdam isn't all that big).
> If you merely let them, they'll build until they can't cover their costs.
The problem in the building industry is that financial commitments are made years in advance, meaning even if things are in a slump, units may be built anyway because the project was on track to happen well before the slump came about. It's also occurred that units are constructed just before a slump hits and as a result the completed units sit empty, the developer goes bankrupt, etc. Overbuilding can and does happen and it can take many years, even decades for a property to finally break even.
>Overbuilding can and does happen and it can take many years, even decades for a property to finally break even.
And in that, the building industry is no different from airlines, oil refineries, auto makers, chip fabs or any other capital intensive industry. Why should we privilege the building industry over the others?
Not sure why you think historical prices matter one bit. Seattle is proof that you don't need San Francisco prices to continue building. Developers from LA and SF can and regularly do build in Seattle where prices are lower but regulation is less obtuse, and many times they end up using Californian general contractors who prefer higher utilization over higher rates with more downtime.
> The problem in the building industry is that financial commitments are made years in advance, meaning even if things are in a slump, units may be built anyway because the project was on track to happen well before the slump came about. It's also occurred that units are constructed just before a slump hits and as a result the completed units sit empty, the developer goes bankrupt, etc. Overbuilding can and does happen and it can take many years, even decades for a property to finally break even.
Overbuilding may occur, but units don't sit empty. They always end up renting out, until the rent is so low that they can't cover variable costs like maintenance. If the rents aren't high enough to cover debt servicing, they'll still rent out...the owner will go bankrupt, they'll lose the property and the lender will take a loss, but the property will be sold by the courts at a price where someone can make money off the current rents.
Despite what you may think, developers will continue developing if prices move downward. Downward price movements primarily impact landowners and lenders, not developers. If developers see downward price movements, they start bidding less on land.
The solution IMO is a "trigger" law that will increase zoning heights in a suburb when the nearby suburbs pass similar laws. This prevents any one town from becoming gentrified if they raise their growth rate above the regional norm.
As an example, Habitat for Humanity wants to build 6 stories of below-market-rate condos in Redwood City, which complies with zoning codes, but are being opposed by a lawyer who lives on the block, because it's "out of character" with the other buildings in the neighborhood.
It's a byzantine approval process that includes City Councils who are 100% responsible for local housing decisions, and are elected and responsible only to current city residents. Zealous Planning Commission boards who consider things like shadows and wind when making decisions, EIR (environmental impact report) appeals, CEQA lawsuits, a constitutional housing amendment (Prop 13) that incentivizes existing homeowners to oppose new development, and more...
(It help if more areas were upzoned, but it's not the reason by any stretch)
On the other hand, you don't want to end up with this[1], so considering things like shadows and/or view obstruction has some merits.
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_Coking#/media/File:View_o...
I haven't checked housing costs recently, but anecdotal data (from people looking for apartments, etc.) is that prices are still through the roof (so to speak). It could be prices will decline later this year or into next year, but pretty soon the supply of new housing will cease to increase so rapidly.
It remains to be seen what happens to housing costs. I could be all wrong, but I'll predict there won't be a significant decrease despite the rapid pace of development.
I had a friend a few years ago who -- unemployed -- drove across the country to Portland, took a job fixing inventory at a music store, and got a room within walking distance of the train. Try pulling that off in the Bay Area!
I've never seen proof of this, do you have any studies?
I know it's blah blahs law which I can't remember but outside of academia I never see a real world case.
If you just mean they fill again from growth well that makes sense. Without building them they would be even worse.
I've never see a cited case where improving infrastructure makes everyone worse off.
I find the examples on wiki a little sketchy and some are flat out anecdotal.
I do agree it will increase the total traffic as you improve the system but the concept it can ever make it worse or the same in the entire system doesn't make sense.
Peoples need to travel by car is not totally fluid. Jobs stay the same and many people catch public transport for reasons other than convenience.
It's sort of another version of the "work expands to fill the time allotted to it" maxim.
And if it's not commuting we're talking about, some people will just choose not to drive into a city for dinner, etc. because it's too much of a hassle.
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/08/lai...
http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-nimby-challen...
OTOH, many people here are not US citizens, so they cannot really do much about any of this.
Something's got to give somewhere.
While I understand this sentiment, it's certainly glossing over the opposing view of people being kicked out of the homes/neighborhoods they grew up in.
the modern day of today doesn't mean that changes. not until there's unlimited frer resources.
The problem from my perspective is that land taxes aren't sufficiently high. Land should not be an easy, safe long term investment. Land should be something you gain title to in order to put to a highly productive use, i.e. live in. A lot of property in growing cities is owned by foreign investors who rarely (if ever) occupy it. If land was no longer a good investment, this would instantly liberate a lot of housing to be used by people who need it.
I wish my account would let me downvote this
From my brief stint in SD, I thought that sentiment was interesting. Especially considering that the housing market is very heavily tied into the military stipend provided for active members. There is a noticeable shift on a nearly annual basis where rental prices shift across the board all together and it doesn't have much to do with influx of residents/demand, but with the stipend increasing for active members. I don't know if this stretches to home-buying as well, but it's almost as if there's this strange symbiotic relationship between the city and military (government) and everyone else is just expected to keep up.
I'm sure people loved SF in the '70s, too. I'm sure people loved SF in the '80s, too. I'm sure people loved SF in the '90s, too.
SF has been changing for a while, most American metropolitan cities have. I always find the argument, "I love ____ as it is now" a little amusing, implying that it was either always that way or that it's finally a way that the person wants it to be.
Honestly, I miss the SF of the '90s and early 2000s, which is probably not the same SF that "people [of today who] love SF as it is."
> LA
what
> SD
wut
Until jobs start spreading out & not get concentrated in small geographic areas, we are doomed to support the high-density metropolis or urban-sprawl-commute-hell.
But, one thing we have to be careful of: If you place constraints on builders: such as requiring affordable housing, it reduces the amount of supply thus making the problem worse for everyone.
What we really need, is more supply. Lots of deregulation to encourage as much building as we can possibly get