Show me the chicken that's unhappy in a $750/mo 750sqft apartment? The only reason that doesn't exist in CA is because of NIMBYs and their ridiculous zoning policies.
There's a lot of chickens unhappy about $1600/month 200sqft apartments. (a real example from SF - https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollecti... )
Because that's the dystopian nightmare in SF, and to move jobs out of silicon valley to elsewhere, would be to export that same dystopia to more places.
We already see this in Michigan of all places. You can make a SF salary and pay $1600/month for a micro-apartment. Or you can take a 50% pay cut, to pay $800/month for ~200sqft micro-apartment. They are equally ridiculous and equally unaffordable, once you account for the currency/wage differences, despite the fact that we have no zoning restrictions in this town.
We obviously need more housing, and need to build more housing, but housing is inherently pollution-heavy. You can not build your way into affordability alone, because the act of new construction inherently generates more unaffordability. It alone can never solve it.
> The only reason (cheap apartments) doesn't exist in CA is because of NIMBYs and their ridiculous zoning policies.
No, that's only a tiny part. Zoning is a small reason, but not the primary one. The biggest reason CA apartments are expensive, is the financial pollution generated by the companies there.
If you built a brand new city in an empty cornfield somewhere, with no laws or zoning of any kind, it would be somewhat cheaper than San Francisco, but every single apartment would still cost ~$1100-$1600/month. Because most of that price is due to the financial pollution from the companies, not the zoning.
They’re not equal. You almost certainly end up with significantly more disposable income in SF.
The whole idea that increasing supply will drop the price isn't 100% accurate. In Chicago we've had lots of new development in an area that wasn't that expensive to be in. Now we have 900sqft 2br places that are 3.2k a month and studios for 1800 in that same area.
That simply means there isn’t sufficient new supply proportional to the new demand. New supply may make an area more desirable, inducing more demand. But there is a limit to the total demand, so one just needs to keep adding supply.
That's a very tech focused idea. Chicago is currently having infrastructure issues due to demand. (the city wants to use that to show "see we need more money" the transit system is always busy.. yet isn't considering how to address that issue)
Anyways, new developers are only choosing to build "luxury" apartments.
Here's an example:
when I moved into logan square: I was paying 1350$+100$ for a garage 2br/1ba. That was about 200$ more than the places around it.
Now that 10+ high rise buildings have been built near by. A place similar to mine costs $3200, and studios are going for 1800. (Either limited parking [as in you are competing with others to rent a space] or no parking at all)
Has the area improved? Nope. Businesses are having an even harder time staying open.
Unfortunately, current regulations and voters make it impossible to create another Chicago/NYC/SF.