Given the “Law of Induced Demand”, can anyone here explain to me why cheap housing is possible?
I would think that all these systems (as in, systems thinking) are functioning the way it supposed to be.
Overpopulation will eventually result in population decline. Because it is too expensive, not enough space/resource, everyone wants the same location, jobs, etc. System oscillates.
That's not to say it's always bad to keep prices higher. Basic regulations do that (e.g. safety) and place a floor on the extent to which housing can truly be affordable without governments just forcing rent control and denying others the chance to live in a particular place entirely.
Even if the system works as you say it would, is the outrageous human cost it entails just a detail for you? We are not trading transistors or currency notes, we are trading people. “Pricing a demographic out” means dislocating vulnerable families again and again as they desperately try to sustain and make an honest living. If we can devise a better system than this abattoir you describe, we owe it to any existing conscience to try and implement it.
It’s only natural to feel like the system is working because you’ve been successful. It takes a better person than natural to think beyond how things have worked for them and try to think of the whole system and it’s participants.
I don’t live in SF or Bangalore. I also don’t own a property.
I’m interested in this discussion, as I say, from Game Theory and Systems Thinking perspective. Lets refer to that.
Greed is part of systems.
Of course, that type of dense land development is impossible in today’s legal/political/voting system.
I mean, there is a cultural aspect to it. I remember a few of my white American friends being shocked at the idea of raising kids in a condo, because « having a house and a yard » is the only way to have kids. Those people, I’m sure, will turn into nimbys in the future because « this housing is not for us ».
There is definitely a cultural gap here. Most immigrants value stable housing they can own and like minded community. Diversity occurs between different communities and not expected between every individual we interact with..
Social status is important. This is the Old World. Most immigrants start out as stateless or on uncertain visas with far away homes. The psychological need to own a home where it is your castle is very deep. Immigrants are almost always NIMBYs in America.
I have examined the reasons why I am a NIMBY. And I am ok with it. Moving to another country and culture for economic reasons is rewarding on one hand but requires painful sacrifices.
I have tried to explain this to Americans and those who didn’t have to leave their home countries and rebuild their identity and lives…some say they understand, but most don’t get it.
That’s ok. There is nothing wrong with being YIMBY or NIMBY. Market forces will decide. I have also observed that most self declared YIMBYs become NIMBYs when they sign their first 30 year mortgage. The weight of a mortgage is heavy. Home ownership is not for everyone and it’s not a walk in the park. Those who willingly bear it will hedge their bets and fight for their investment. This is normal.
Incidentally all my immigrant friends and relatives who do NIMBY arguments also vote republican and supported Trump. For what it’s worth.
At the end of the day, we elect politicians based on which areas of our daily lives we want to be screwed over..it seems like... There are no winners amongst the voting, tax paying public.
If people want to live in homes instead of jammed into skyscrapers Hong Kong pr NY style - which many would view as a horribly reduced quality of living - it's their choice.
NY, HK - two of the most densely urban place in he world have not solved the 'housing crisis' - they're among the most expensive places in the world to live.
That said, cost of living has skyrocketed far beyond what can be attributed to that - fairly high migration, a lot of foreign buyers (only 4% directly, but 'kids with citizenship using parents money' amounts to a big other cohort) and that is very easily enough to drive prices. Combined with low interest rates, an aging population with incredible voting power/influence, a booming economy and there you have it.
'Globalization' means SF and Van. basically are 'up for grabs' by everyone on the planet, not just locals.
1/2 of the real estate in the most posh parts of London are owned by foreigners for he very same reason.
There needs to be a total rethink on how taxation works in those parameters.
That said, it's rational: if a lot of talent wants in, prices will be higher. I don't know if 'artists' are going to be able to live there without some kind of very specific interventions.
Other things, such as public transport can have a huge effect - if SF Bay were to be amalgamated into at least some kind of 'mega city' you might see high speed commuter trains.
Imagine a very fast train from Stockton, Pleasanton, Gilroy, Santa Rosa - getting you to 'wherever' in the Bay area within 25 minutes?
There's tons of real estate around the Bay Area, for artists, working class, middle class, regular folks, people who want 'big houses' etc.. it just not 'accessible' to the core.
Or even micro/satellite offices as a civic mandate: building out offices that can be adjusted in size quickly, so that Salesforce, FB, Snap etc. will all have offices in San Jose, SF, Sacramento and bounce back and forth as needed.
The government fails in its mission if it lets a handful of people hold the most valuable land hostage. At least Nimbys should pay much higher property taxes to make up for the economic damage they cause the rest of the country, so they can live in a single family home next to a major city downtown.
Free up zoning, get rid lopsided tax breaks like prop 13. Or end up with a revolution like in France in 1700s. Or lose to China.
I painted with some broad strokes here, but the picture is clear.
? This is upside down.
It's only valuable because you want it. It's not 'intrinsically valuable'.
The great thing about America as opposed to most parts of the world is that there is plenty of land.
Go 100Km out of SF Bay and land is very cheap.
'Life Liberty and Pursuit of Hapniness' means a bunch of angry people cannot arbitrarily force you out of your home, because they want to 'move in'.
If this were a perverse issue of resource hoarding - i.e. everyone in SF was living on 30 acres of land and not willing to budge, then this would be a different discussion.
The 'American Dream' is not the right to live in the most choice plot in the US, it's just to have a nice spot, safe, secure etc..
If SF/Valley is where the jobs are, and you can't afford to live there - that's very fair. Push the companies to get some kind of good transport in place. Or adapt in some other way.
Your framing of this issue is frankly ridiculous - it's SF homeowners vs other residents and property owners in SF who would like to densify their land.
It's not about people's right to live anywhere, it's about people's right to do as they wish with their property.
Your framing of 'I can do whatever I want' is what's 'ridiculous'.
You can't build a skyscraper on your property arbitrarily because it affects others in the immediate vicinity.
If the community doesn't want skyscrapers - you can't have skyscrapers.
There are infinity locations to build in the USA, which means can whatever you want on the whole.
Go away from the community that doesn't want the things you want to build, to one that does.
Unfortunately, there is only one San Francisco peninsula with cold air from the Pacific and warm air from the desert. I think the California legislature should over rule the city to deal with the homeless crisis and cost of living crisis. The Nimbys in San Francisco, like other cities, have no skin in the game to fix that problem as they benefit enormously from the crisis they make much worse.
We're talking about low-rise apartment buildings.
Perhaps if I rephrased your statement as "If the community doesn't want poor people and minorities - you can't have poor people and minorities" you'd better understand why this is a morally bankrupt argument. Given the price of housing, it's effectively the same thing.
Like, you know, by building more housing. Government restrictions is what put us in this mess in the first place.
It's not in any way your right to tell some people living in a community that they need to build more (or anything else).
It's incredibly selfish and petty, and oddly people are trying to couch this in some kine of 'liberation' language?
'The government' isn't really restricting, so much as community members.
Parts of SF (or wherever) don't want to build skyscrapers - it's their choice - and none of your business, unless you're a resident.
There's tons of land in the US, and a lot of it is very inexpensive.
It's not outsiders vs SF residents, it's SF residents vs SF residents.
I’ve lived in NY. Many of my friends are people who moved from SF to NY. The housing in ny is much better than SF. For the same rent you get a place with 3x better commute, and 100x less syringes and feces. This is just for the skilled workers. Even a commute from Staten Island is nothing compared to the horrendous commuting conditions I’ve heard from some of the less fortunate folks still trying to make it in the Bay Area.
All because a bunch of rich privileged people keep insisting some grass in front of their house will make them happy and nothing else will so screw everyone else.
It's none of your business what other people want to do within their communities, and it's ridiculous that you think you have the right to tell them - but worse - to disparage and gaslight others for not wanting to change their lives dramatically to suit your little agenda and lifestyle choices?
Of course - SF vs. NY is mostly a matter of choice.
From my purview - NY is a giant pile of hot concrete and garbage, I would never live there for any reason. It's laughable that anyone would contemplate spending such vast sums to live in a 'tiny box' even for a shorter 'shorter commute'. But that's just me.
In my (previous) years of living in SF, I've never come across a 'syringe' or 'shit' - moreover, that's entirely a function of civic break down and kind of besides the point - it's another, separate issue.
SF is otherwise a lovely city that I have no interest in living in anymore, but if they don't want to build skyscrapers it's entirely their prerogative.
I probably could not afford to live there now, much like I can't afford to live many places, that's just reality. Other, richer people want to live there. Oh well. There are innumerable nice places where I, and others, can live and be just as prosperous.
This is exactly it. Further, attempts to preserve the current population size of a city and keep things the same as they are can only try to deprive newcomers of the infrastructure needed to support themselves (housing, transit, etc.), but not actually make it illegal for people to move in. And quite clearly, they will move in anyway. Even cities that try to adapt can only grow so quickly, as it takes time to build new infrastructure, but new arrivals can come at any time.
In some ways I expect this problem will get worse, as the population of people who are decoupled from a particular location increases. “Work from home” is nearly the same thing as “work from anywhere”, and I expect that a lot of people will want their “anywhere” to be the currently trendy locale, and will throng from place to place.
The problems are with pearl-clutching neighbors.
Sorry the little people are getting in the way of this great leap forward you wish to make at their expense.
EDIT: Anyone who wants to force high density housing on others should ONLY be allowed to take vacations on community loving cruise ships. I mean, there is no valid reason to not want to vacation on cruise ships, and by putting all vacationers together it improves efficient, maximizes space, and reduced impact, right? That is the only acceptable vacation.
These high density areas, and even many low density areas, have a housing shortage. A lot of the current inflation is being driven by rent. Now grown ups cannot buy homes in communities they’ve grown up in. Is the alternative supposed to be abandoning social networks or living in the streets?
It's why SF has transplant as a pejorative. Personally, I am comfortable living around people not like me or who have chosen a different path. And I think there are many Americans who do and that the thrust of progress here comes from those people: the ones who are comfortable with change.
People don't leave college and move into dorms of 'in-groups' that meet their bias.
Do you make up in your head your partners movitions, frustrations, wants in your head too? Or do you just dehumanize motivations for people who don't hold your 'correct' opinion?
EDIT: Anyone who wants to force high density housing on others should ONLY be allowed to take vacations on community loving cruise ships. I mean, there is no valid reason to not want to vacation on cruise ships, and by putting all vacationers together it improves efficient, maximizes space, and reduced impact, right? That is the only acceptable vacation. There can be no valid reason to not require all vacations be via cruise ship.
SF has half the population density of Brooklyn, not even close to Manhattan.
So cheap housing will arrive when those who do not benefit from economic rent seeking or exceptions to having rent extracted from them outnumber the rest.
With high population growth, I think that's possible. It's also possible with economic collapse but I think the Bay Area is here to stay.
Places have subcultures and SF's tech subculture is novelty. Even startup culture in NYC is mostly about industrializing the process of copying novelty: mostly the China approach.