Hacker News Reader

Comment by ppeetteerr | Hacker News Reader

There are two counter arguments to this:

1) Some areas have geographic or legal limits to constructions (maximum building hight, water, etc). There is simply no way to build more building without first demolishing existing buildings, which is costly.

2) Most people want to live close to work, and work tends to be close to the centre. A house that is an hour commute away will not influence the price in the immediate vicinity.

If space was infinite, it would be Econ 101, but given that space is not, elected officials need to protect the voting population from inflation, through whatever means possible.

View on HN

All American cities have huge amounts of unbuilt land dedicated to surface parking, usually required by law. This land can be redeveloped with parking underground, or on rooftops.

If anything, the laws demands everyone subsidize parking through higher prices / rents. London recently got rid of parking laws and to no one's surprise, developers built a lot less parking.

Parking is a perfect example of bad zoning manifesting in the misallocation of resources - we simply have more parking than we want to pay for.

Some areas have geographic or legal limits to constructions (maximum building hight, water, etc). There is simply no way to build more building without first demolishing existing buildings, which is costly.

But not as costly as sticking to the status quo - if you account for opportunity costs.

Most people want to live close to work, and work tends to be close to the centre. A house that is an hour commute away will not influence the price in the immediate vicinity.

that's not true at all. Look at commuter suburbs and exurbs that get developed.

If space was infinite, it would be Econ 101, but given that space is not, elected officials need to protect the voting population from inflation, through whatever means possible.

Space is not the issue - space utilization absolutely is and zoning laws produce suboptimal space utilization. There should be a lot more residental sky scrapers in the bay area than there currently are. If San Fran adopted the zoning of say Dallas, things would be different and probably more affordable.

> that's not true at all. Look at commuter suburbs and exurbs that get developed

It's only through the construction of highways that suburbs can be accessible. There was a great study done to show that the cost of highways is mostly subsidized by the inner city, not the suburbs themselves.

This is what I mean about keeping inflation low through use of the government: only the resources of a centralized government can undertake the construction of highways that keep the cost of downtown areas "low". In effect, this is one of the strategies to reduce inflation: infrastructure.

For the space issue, see my answer below to bmcusick

Are you intentionally confusing separate issues? An hour away from the city is an hour away from a city, infrastructure can change the distance you can travel in an hour (e.g in countries with high speed rail, it's not uncommon for people to commute over 100 miles, that'd be a very long commute anywhere in America).

The highways extend the amount of land that's available for commuters, maybe cities should pay for them as the highways make it possible for cities to get away with inefficient zoning.

> Space is not the issue - space utilization absolutely is and zoning laws produce suboptimal space utilization. There should be a lot more residental sky scrapers in the bay area than there currently are. If San Fran adopted the zoning of say Dallas, things would be different and probably more affordable.

Another point is that the land under a building may not support a building taller than a certain height.

Subject to economic / technical constraints. But when there's money at stake, construction companies find a way. The petronas towers have pylons driven deeper than 100 meters [0].

You're right that the land matters and a San Fran to Dallas comparison is challenged in many dimensions but I think San Fran's housing market would be more reasonable if it were money / technology constrained, not zoning law constrained.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petronas_Towers

You can almost always build more housing on a given lot though. My detached single family home uses 1/5 or less of the land on my lot. You could build four town homes of the same size as my house on the same lot. If you went to four stories, eight units of 2,000 square feet each.

This isn't rocket science. It's about density of units per amount of land.

First, you have to sell your home, which is not always a reality. Then, a construction company has to buy your expensive house and build enough stories to make up for the difference of buying, demolishing and building again. Finally, the municipality has to allow a building of that height. That's why in many areas you see townhouses that go up in price, but no developer wants to turn them into 4+ storey buildings.

The only hard part about that is the municipal permitting. Home construction is not rocket science! This is a mature industry and purchase, demolition, and new construction all have predictable costs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com