That's funny, my takeaway was that the vast majority of the US has incredibly affordable housing.
But I suppose if your call center employees simply must be living in downtown S.F. the answer must be that we just need lax zoning and higher density!
But I suppose if your call center employees simply must be living in downtown S.F. the answer must be that we just need lax zoning and higher density!
The call center employees living en masse in SF is a very far fetched claim that requires strong evidence here, along with the implication that they are what necessitates higher density.
This framing is insensitive to both call center workers who likely could never afford to live in SF and those who are paying the price of anti development NIMBYism in the Bay Area housing market.
If you think my framing is insensitive to call center employees, I think you may have misunderstood me. I was condescending to the call center employers who are causing undue financial stress on their employees by making S.F. relo a job requirement for what should be a satellite office, if not remote work, position.
My point is also that people who struggle to afford the high cost of living in the "Real Bay Area" [2] -- of which I was one -- should perhaps consider, I don't know, moving -- which I did.
The idea that SF should be redesigned and reconstructed until such time as supply is so plentiful as to bring down prices an order of magnitude, to me that's the offensive bit. I think the property owners of SF are well within their rights to tell people who want to build affordable housing towers to get lost.
[1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/02/23...
[2] - See: http://www.burbed.com
P.S. If this comes off as a little combative, I apologize, my dad is in a house on the canal in Cape Coral, FL right now and refusing to evacuate.
Not sure where you get the idea that it should be redesigned, but I do think that incremental [1] upzoning in places where demand exceeds supply of housing (in SF and beyond) makes a great deal of sense.
[1] https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/12/16/incremental-d...
And that is the problem!
The concept of property ownership is crucial when it comes to NIMBY vs. YIMBY. Because with politically entrenched tight zoning, property owners can tell others what to do with their property too.
Whereas in cities with lax zoning you effectively get stronger property rights. And in countries which constitutionally protect property ownership you basically see a very elastic housing market and thus not as much gentrification/housing-shortages.
Technically correct, first amendment and all. But really you are pro-NIMBY?
Zoning is pretty important. A neighbor recently subdivided his large lot into 3, and having enough frontage on the street meant they could do it without zoning board approval. The houses they are building were designed precisely to push to the max against every possible zoning bylaw; setbacks 1 inch above the minimum, building height-above-grade 1 inch below the maximum, lot coverage ratio 1% below the maximum, etc.
Then their proposed septic failed perc testing at ground level, and since they didn't want an "unsightly mound" in their backyard, they brought in about 80,000 cu yards of dirt and raised the whole lot up by ~20 ft! Because the bylaw was written as building height calculated against finished grade, not natural grade there was nothing stopping them from creating their hill. Well, they did have to build a substantial drainage system around the perimeter because it's illegal to increase stormwater runoff from a lot in the natural vs. finished state, but we'll see how long that lasts...
Builders will cut every corner, push every limit, and develop to the absolute highest density to maximize profits. Of course building codes and zoning bylaws make housing more expensive to build. Getting a glimpse at what builders will do given the chance, to literally my back yard, I really, really wouldn't want to see what would happen if zoning boards could be overridden by outside developers wanting to "increase supply".
For example, most of the new construction in SF is rental units. You can't buy it, you can't own it. It's going to be mostly corporate housing, run by corporate property managers, with cookie-cutter units, probably poorly run and poorly maintained.
I've been on a condo board for ~10 years. Building a community is hard work! But as the rental ratio in the complex climbed from 0% to 32% over the last 10 years, there's a stark difference between renters and owners in how people treat the units and common areas, treat their neighbors, and the level of involvement and care they have for the complex itself. Certainly some owners create problems, but having a vested interest makes a big difference vs. certain renters who could give a shit. And, problematically, when the owners move away and decide to rent, they usually stop giving a shit too.
Capitalism is a ladder (To paraphrase a certain GoT character). No one has to be a call center worker till the end of their days, it's just stuff you do until you can find a better job (perhaps after attaining some extra training in your off-hours).
Boston/Cambridge? Expensive. But 45 mins or so out? Far less so. And you're closer to where most of the jobs are anyway. The urban cores may be a lifestyle choice. But it's a luxury choice in many cases. Not a place that someone actually has to live if they want to work.
Is this a case where a small increase in supply would decrease the price significantly? I doubt it.
So, is there some reason we (as a nation) need to double population density of our largest cities? With the huge advances we are likely to see in autonomous zero-emission delivery infrastructure and remote communication over the next 20 years, not to mention the increasing likelihood of natural disasters and WMDs hitting these cities, I really don't see the point of pushing for so much urban growth.
Apparently my property taxes can't even cover the cost of pavement and water mains, and yet we just built a new school, and are in the process of planning a $20 million library.
[1] - https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/9/the-real-reason...
From the link: "If they operated on accrual accounting -- where you account for your long term liabilities -- instead of a cash basis -- where you don't -- they would have been bankrupt decades ago"
The PF analogy to what you're saying is "yeah I'm dipping into savings to make mortgage payments and need to replace my roof next year and repair a major crack in the foundation. But they let me open a credit card and get a loan for a car, so what's the problem?"
That's just, like, your opinion, man. I prefer living in denser environments.
But to your point, if denser is so much better, will increased density lead to lower prices, or just create more demand and keep prices the same?
One cannot afford to live in the Bay Area on anything near minimum wage. So fuck "The Real Bay Area" and live just about anywhere else in the continental US.
So housing affordability on minimum wage in most of the US is closer to California at median wage than it is to most of the US at median wage.
Living on minimum wage is hard anywhere. The question is -- is it OK if there is 5-10% of the continental US where it's impossible to live on minimum wage? I think that yes that's probably OK...
Is it OK that for some [relatively small number of] cities, that median wage feels like minimum wage? Why is that a problem when people have the choice to live there or not?
Of course, it doesn't address how easy it is to find a job in the first place in those locations, but it's a great point nonetheless.
What are you comparing against? In the US, the old rule of thumb (up until the ~1990's) was that you shouldn't buy more house than 2X your income. That's more affordable than what is depicted here.
EDIT: I've added link to a Calculated Risk post on the ratio between US house prices and median income since 1976 [0]. By their estimates, the typical ratio has been 3X, low by your standards.
[0] http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2017/07/house-prices-to-na...