Oakland shows how to expand housing supply: tell developers they can build homes

Yes, the model is called supply and demand. When you increase the quantity supplied, the only way the extra quantity can be sold, is if the price drops. If you increase the quantity supplied without reducing the price, the extra units will never be sold. Why would they... anyone who was willing to pay the previous price, would have already done so and will already have a home in SF/Oakland. The only way to fill the new units is to entice new residents who aren't willing to pay the previous price point.

A city needs all kinds of people. Affordability and density needs to be moderated so that there's enough diversity in families and employment to function well. Also some of the most affordable areas in the USA are also the most sparse.

I don't necessarily see how one follows the other. So long as there's diversity in, for instance, bedroom count on units, what difference does it make if the units are stacked horizontally as they are today or vertically? To be clear, I'd love your thoughts, I'm not sure myself.

> Also some of the most affordable areas in the USA are also the most sparse.

Indeed because building up is expensive, so it requires demand. There's no demand in the middle of Idaho even comparable to what SF has.

Further, I'm proposing scrapping constraints on new development, not taking peoples 2 story Sunset units via eminent domain and throwing up SoMa style 50 story skyscrapers.

I think it's not an unreasonable place to start by doubling all height restrictions across all of SF. No more of this prime real estate on 17th and Brannan (the SFMTA bus lot redevelopment) getting wanged by a 4 story cap. That should be 20+ no question.

Infrastructure costs increase as you increase density. Charging an appropriate fee for new housing rather than limiting the growth is an efficient solution, but current methods allow for local corruption.

That’s just one of the hidden reasons for our current system. Another, is most people want to live as far as possible from poor people.

They are but they build and then sell off, developers develop, they tend not to own those units long-term. I believe this to be true regardless of market direction. Generally in the case of condos for sale, developers manage the complexes for a couple of years until enough units are sold off and the HOA takes them over.

If someone wants to run the whole building for rental, they can certainly still do that. You would just factor in that your rent would grow with inflation instead of geometrically when you're planning your building.

2) How do you avoid a race to the bottom in terms of housing quality when you allow said micro-apartments? Do we want a culture where the poor are living in barely livable wage slave pods while the rich are living in abundant villas?

Indeed, that is a risk, however the current solution of not providing these folks a place to live is a punt.

Re: government operation model, I actually agree with you wholeheartedly. Singapore's model where something like 80% of housing is built and managed by the HDB and 20% if totally free-market has worked very well there. I didn't want to bring that into the already-long-enough post as I felt it might distract from my point shrug. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore