Oakland shows how to expand housing supply: tell developers they can build homes • Hacker News Board

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

#171

Post by Retric » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 5:38 PM UTC

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #119

Retric wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with what you’re saying, but that’s overly simplistic. 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.

Infrastucture costs are higher for decreased density . This is well known. You have to lay a lot more pavement and pipe when people live farther apart. Your typical suburban subdivision doesn't even pay enough in property taxes to maintain their infrastructure, and is subsidized by the denser areas. The folks at StrongTowns have done tons of work in this area.

If the comparison where to empty fields or low density suburbs I would agree per person, but we are talking about existing cities which act as an inflection point. Further, expanding infrastructure is an additional capital cost where much existing infrastructure has already been built and paid for.

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

#172

Post by Kalium » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 5:39 PM UTC

huntertwo wrote: post #24

arcticbull wrote: post #5

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…

> 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?

Right now we've got a scenario where the rich live in fifty-year-old units that really ought to be reasonably priced and the poorest live in alleyways. Having the poor in up-to-code micro-apartments would be a major step up. It would also help if the rich could also live in modern up-to-code units of luxurious size. That would free some of the stock of existing units for everyone else instead of them being pinched between the rich and the most vulnerable.

> I'm all for affordable housing but it seems too nuanced to allow market forces to take care of it. I think the correct solution revolves around government subsidized/funded housing but that's a whole other can of beans.

The US has a poor record of being capable of funding and running public housing, even after you get past the effects of concentrating poverty. The first major problem is often that permanently BMR units cost in excess of $800k each to construct in places like SF - and the city has to be able to afford a lot of those. Then you have the problem of funding ongoing costs, which has often been the problem in the US.

With this in mind, it's perhaps worth reconsidering why some might favor approachs that center on inclusing subsidized units into mixed-income properties.

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

#173

Post by mamon » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 5:41 PM UTC

edoo wrote: post #7

arcticbull wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not being able to afford a house decreases quality of life infinitely more than some increased density.

If you can't afford a house there maybe you should consider moving somewhere more affordable.

You actually can have both: dedicate some parts of the city for single-family homes for upper-middle class,other parts for high rise buildings. That's how many cities in Europe look like: high density central districts, then some suburbs. The choice is then: do you prefer short commute and living in apartment, or a bit longer commute, but your own big house.

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

#174

Post by hanniabu » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 5:43 PM UTC

mschuster91 wrote: post #134

hanniabu wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The big cost items are kitchens and bathrooms Why does a pod need a kitchen and bathroom? If it had those it'd be called a studio apartment. A pod is essentially anything from a dorm room styled apartment to a half-height room big enough to have a bed to sleep in and a shelf for a few items (like the Japanese have). In any of those cases you'd have communal kitchens and bathrooms. This would actually also be good s…

> Why does a pod need a kitchen and bathroom? Basic human dignity? Being forced to share an intimate thing such as a bathroom with strangers or depending on strangers not eating your food/trashing your stuff or not being able to feed yourself because another person is cooking a 5-rounds-meal is not something that should be acceptable in a developed nation.

I mean, it's affordable living, obviously there's going to be trade-offs just like there's trade-offs when you opt for a 1 bathroom home or apartment vs a 2 bathroom, a place with dedicated parking vs no dedicated parking, or personal laundry in-house vs external laundry facility.

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

#175

Post by overgard » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 5:44 PM UTC

huntertwo wrote: post #24

arcticbull wrote: post #5

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…

> Do we want a culture where the poor are living in barely livable wage slave pods while the rich are living in abundant villas?

Given the abundance of "working homeless" (homeless people with jobs); I think we're already there. At least with cheap housing they can be insulated from the cold and such (unlike tents).

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

#176

Post by lallysingh » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 5:44 PM UTC

mschuster91 wrote: post #126

helen___keller wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know your age, but from my experience this is a generational thing. During the great suburban expansion, houses were parroted as your greatest asset and your biggest investment. In the modern era, if you don't own a home already you probably couldn't care less about the investment quality of a home. You just want a home to live in and call yours without an 80 minute commute.

> During the great suburban expansion, houses were parroted as your greatest asset and your biggest investment. The "investment" should not be "I can sell this in 20 years for a boatload of profit" but rather "I don't have to pay rent when retired, only property taxes + maintenance + energy".

Also "I can recover sooner if my housing costs when I want to move."

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

#177

Post by jlmorton » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 5:45 PM UTC

mrep wrote: post #97

nhebb wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (1) Americans consider housing to be an investment. Apparently I'm the lone dissenter on this, but I think for many people this is a side benefit that they may hope for, but the primary objective is simply to own a home that they can live in and raise a family.

I'm with you. Granted, I do consider it an investment in the sense that every month I pay off part of the principal and thus I can get some money back when I sell it whereas I'd get nothing if I was renting but I don't expect greater than inflation appreciation on the house. However, this could just be because I grew up in Chicago where there is endless farmland that can be developed and thus expecting greater than i…

> but I don't expect greater than inflation appreciation on the house.

Even expecting the house to hold its value is rather strange. You would naturally expect the value of a home to decrease by some amount each year. Most of us would prefer a modern home to an older home. The only reason it does not is because supply of new homes is restricted.

In well functioning markets like Tokyo, that's exactly what we see: homes tend to lose value each year until around 25-30 years most are simply torn down and re-built.

So in Tokyo, not only is the average rent sharply lower than a city like San Francisco, the housing is also more modern. The average age of a home in Tokyo is 20 years. More than half of Tokyo's housing stock has been built since the year 2000.

In San Francisco, more than half of the housing stock was built before 1940.

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

#178

Post by beamatronic » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 5:45 PM UTC

arcticbull wrote: post #5

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 think you have a false choice in there somewhere. Yes we want housing to grow more than 2%. No we don’t need housing to grow by 500%.

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

#179

Post by hkmurakami » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 5:45 PM UTC

arcticbull wrote: post #29

huntertwo wrote: post #24

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…

FWIW there are developers who build and hold long term, but it depends on their strategy and hoe their capital structure is set up.

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

#180

Post by JoshTko » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 5:46 PM UTC

maxsilver wrote: post #137

BurningFrog wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The price of housing is determined by supply and demand, not the developer. Building new housing lowers prices for all preexisting housing.

> Building new housing lowers prices for all preexisting housing This is not true in the US. Housing in the US is valued solely by the value of the housing around it (called 'comps' or 'comparables'). Building new luxury housing raises the price for all preexisting nearby housing, because your comparables will now be based on whatever the luxury housing prices are (even if your own house is very modest, even if your…

Any reference on this as it doesn't make sense intuitively. How does increasing supply increase price? I could see how this could have hyper local effects in UHCOL locations, where you attract foreign investment by virtue of showing a trend of increasing rent prices. This also probably happens only in locations where demand has far exceeded supply for a long time.