41–50 of 326 posts
"Tokyo has positive population growth of about 100,000 people a year, and rents and home prices are roughly stable for last decade.
How? Outconstructing NYC. And LA. And SF. And Boston. And Houston.
Combined.
Every year."
The whole topic of conversation around housing affordability is backwards. Specifically, housing affordability is 100%, entirely, a problem of artificial constraints on supply by city councils. (1) Americans consider housing to be an investment. An investment is only an investment if you expect a positive return over time. We generally want that investment to match or exceed inflation. (2) That's antithetical to the…
Two thoughts 1) Isn't a developer also making an investment when they build these high as hell micro-apartment apartment buildings? 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? I'm all for affordable housing but it seems too nuance…
The poor can always move away if space becomes a real problem. Plenty of "SF-poor" people outside CA who are actually living in "abundant villas" in their preferred locations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not being able to afford a house decreases quality of life infinitely more than some increased density.
Wouldn't the world simply increase population where this is still the case even if we build more housing though?
[1] http://ijp.mums.ac.ir/article_7680_7828694c3909aa70d156fb9c8...
The whole topic of conversation around housing affordability is backwards. Specifically, housing affordability is 100%, entirely, a problem of artificial constraints on supply by city councils. (1) Americans consider housing to be an investment. An investment is only an investment if you expect a positive return over time. We generally want that investment to match or exceed inflation. (2) That's antithetical to the…
The whole topic of conversation around housing affordability is backwards. Specifically, housing affordability is 100%, entirely, a problem of artificial constraints on supply by city councils. (1) Americans consider housing to be an investment. An investment is only an investment if you expect a positive return over time. We generally want that investment to match or exceed inflation. (2) That's antithetical to the…
I have friends who work on housing (and related) policies. The stereotype of "Liberal Seattle" simply isn't true. One of our biggest intraparty food fights is the upzoners vs the nimbys. The tortured logic and hypocrisy of the nimbys is maddening. Yes, homelessness and affordability are acute problems, govt should do something, but increasing supply couldn't possibly work.
I can't prove it, but I know it's true: Ok Boomer. All the nimbys I know (active in policy, politics) are my age and older.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a trade-off though, if it comes at the cost of smaller and worse living accomodation for themselves. And you have to be careful that the transport and other infrastructure can keep up. Transport in particular always seems to get ignored.
Right but lets focus on one problem at a time. With more people in the city, you have a bigger tax base, meaning more tax revenue, meaning you can spend more to improve infrastructure like public transit. The population of SF has only increased by 111K (14%) in the last 20 years. Imagine what we could do with twice as many people contributing tax revenue?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You opinion on density is just that, your opinion, not everyone agrees. Density means a larger selection of jobs, increased variety in entertainment (ie: more likely to find something you personally love), increased selection of medical professionals, increased variety in food, ability to avoid driving commutes, kids who can self-manage without being driven everywhere, etc. To some people that's worth more cramped li…
> You opinion on density is just that, your opinion, not everyone agrees. Sure but curious why that comment is downvoted and yours is not? Disagreeement != downvote.
> The well being of the people is lost in the drive for infinite growth.
There is no drive for infinite growth, that I have found. People are just trying to have enough housing for everyone, yet this "infinite growth might happen therefore we are going to impose housing austerity" is the attitude that has been prevalent in older suburban homeowners, and that's exactly how we got into this mess of a housing crisis.
Categorically dismissing the large number of people that choose to live in cities because they prefer them is ridiculous. If it really were worse, prices would be lower in the cities than outside them. More people want what cities have to offer than are allowed to access them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Two thoughts 1) Isn't a developer also making an investment when they build these high as hell micro-apartment apartment buildings? 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? I'm all for affordable housing but it seems too nuance…
1) Isn't a developer also making an investment when they build these high as hell micro-apartment apartment buildings? 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…
Compounded growth at inflation is geometric growth.
They forget the human cost. Increasing density decreases quality of life. The people are the product of the cities in the commercial sense. The well being of the people is lost in the drive for infinite growth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither of you are incorrect as it's about preferences, but the real problem is one of balance. 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.
> A city needs all kinds of people to function and affordability and density needs to be moderated so that there's enough diversity in families and employment to function well. 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…
One difference is how far things end up to be after. If they are spaced vertically, everything ends up far from everything.
Not enough people living in the geographic area means that stores wont be there, playgrounds will be empty, school will be far away. Visiting friends means longer drives, commute to work means longer drive.