Hacker News Reader

Comment by timr | Hacker News Reader

"The only reason these types of facilities exist is due to outrageous real estate prices caused by extreme regulation."

Yeah, I was wondering how long it would take before someone corrected me that San Francisco's real estate prices were due to our zoning laws.

Kudos to you for not disappointing me. Now that you mention it, I'm sure that our real estate prices are indeed a byproduct of the evil, evil guv'ment, and have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that this is one of the most densely populated cities in the world.

View on HN

No, it's not, and in fact it's not even close. Wikipedia quotes SF at 17,800 people per sq.mi. There are tons of cities that are double that, while Mumbai tops 80,000 and Dhaka, Bangladesh squeezes in 115,000:

http://www.newgeography.com/content/002808-world-urban-areas...

Not that I'm saying SF should aspire to Dhaka standards of housing, but there's way more to it than just population density, or lack thereof.

Yes, of course. Because it's absolutely fair to compare prices in a city in a first-world country to ones in third-world countries, based on population density alone. I'm sure there's nothing wrong with that approach.

But as long as we're staring intently at the bark on the trees, you should tell me: how much more expensive is co-working space in Mumbai than in rural India? Do you get a discount if you bring your own water?

The link includes the two US cities in the top 20, and neither of them is SF. And while density calculation is complicated, on any metric SF is way less dense than NY.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2012/10/americas-tr...

And since you ask, the "unlimited" package at this rather swish coworking facility in Mumbai runs Rs.9000, or about $100, per month.

http://bombay-connect.com/space/start-co-working/

I like how you both disregarded my sarcasm, yet simultaneously ignored the substance of the sarcastic question: is it more or less expensive to rent space in Mumbai than in rural India? By what factor?

I'm not an expert on India, but I'm guessing it's a tad more expensive.

One of the most densely populated cities in the world by what measure? It's barely top 10 in the United States (depending on how you define 'city'). Hyperbole won't win any arguments here.

Back to the topic at hand, something's seriously amiss if you believe that San Francisco's Rent Control Ordinance and other regulations have nothing to do with the issue. I believe it's a perfect storm of undesirable rental conditions -- high population, high regulation, and high demand. I'm interested in hearing an argument to the contrary.

San Francisco is is pretty sparse, relatively. It's certainly not top ten or anything.

It's one of the most densely populated places in the US, (depending on how you count metropolitan areas). And, surprise surprise, it's more expensive than most other places in the US.

But hey...last I looked, real estate was pretty expensive in Tokyo, London and Paris too. Their governments must all be pretty evil with the oppressive zoning laws.

[I'm linking to this debunking of your population density claim for the benefit of joshu, who might not be reading all of this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6325649 ]

To be fair, I'm not reading it either. This thread has descended into self-parody.

"Kudos to you for not disappointing me. Now that you mention it, I'm sure that our real estate prices are indeed a byproduct of the evil, evil guv'ment, and have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that this is one of the most densely populated cities in the world."

I'm sorry, are you really so naive as to believe the reason construction costs (and resulting real estate costs) in SF being so high are not in part due to the egregious planning process and large number of zoning/etc regulations?

If so, talking to a commercial or residential builder should dispel that myth pretty quickly.

Rents are a result of demand and offer. San Francisco has seen an incredible raise in rent costs, because more and more people (with money, evidently) want to move to SF (from elsewhere in the country, or from the South Bay).

San Francisco's density is 6,800 people per square kilometre.

New York City's density is 22,200 people per square kilometre. In fact every borough, including Staten Island, is denser.

Tokyo's density is 35,600 people per square kilometre.

Manila is the world's densest at 42,900 per square kilometre.

San Francisco is the 20th most-densely populated area in the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_proper_by_popula...

OK. And?

And you are wrong about it being one of the most densely populated areas in the US? 20th isn't that high.

Real estate is expensive here in large part because it's very densely populated. Whether or not it's #1 or #1,000 on that wikipedia list is almost completely irrelevant to the point I was making.

OK, ceteris paribus, how does higher density drive up prices?

It would seem to me that the arrow of causality points the other way. Higher prices --> higher buildings --> higher density.

"It would seem to me that the arrow of causality points the other way. Higher prices --> higher buildings --> higher density."

Right. Land was just expensive here before all those people moved in and started competing for it.

Right. So what happens when the arrow is broken at the "higher buildings" point?

So the fact that construction cost per square foot is ridiculously high in SF (as are planning expenses as a percentage of overall construction cost) has nothing to do it ?

Exactly. That's why I said "in large part". Because I meant "entirely explained by".

In my experience, when people say "x is caused in large part by y", they then provide some form of evidence to back this statement up.

Instead, you haven't. In fact, when presented with contrary data as has happened in other parts of this thread, you have told people:

1. They are interpreting it wrong

2. Despite the fact that it contradicts your point, it in fact supports your point.

Given that, i'd suggest either

1. You become an economist

2. You realize you need to explain yourself better if you want to actually convince people your opinion is right.

So far, you have convinced no one that I can see, nor actually responded substantively to any point raised against your argument.

Many of those listed above SF on that list are tiny areas within a large continuous dense urban area. They don't really have much independent significance from the surrounding area economically. They are basically historical artifacts, from a time before they all grew and merged together in all but city government.

That's a pretty ridiculous list of US places to try to argue against SF being dense for the US. Not all of them are as absurd as the 362 people near Louisville, KY, bit, but basically that list says "NYC is denser than SF, as are a few relatively small parts of LA, but SF is easily the second densest large city in the US."

I agree, the US list is skewed by the effects of county size. However, the 5 boroughs of NYC are geographically large in a human scale. All of them are more densely populated than San Francisco, including the ostensibly suburban Staten Island.

Meanwhile, Tokyo is vast and, until recently, could not have Manhattan-esque skyscrapers. It is substantially more densely populated.

San Francisco is more densely populated than a suburb. But the idea that it's amongst the most densely populated places is just not true, either in the world at large or the USA in particular.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com