Live data from Hacker News

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

city-journal.org

181–190 of 326 posts

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

#181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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".

A boatload of tax-free profit, the first $250K is tax exempt for individuals and 500K for couples.

That is mouse nuts compared to how much people get paid in stock around here

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

#182

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%.

That's not a false choice. If you grow faster than inflation than it's only a matter of time before your grow by 500% in total. If you e.g. grow by 4% annually then you will have quadrupled in 36 years.

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

#183
post #141
post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>upper middle class and up people who previously decided to live further away over paying the extreme rent costs move in, the population grows, and the price break never trickles down to the poor people in the city It does because the poor people move into the housing that the upper middle class vacated. Population growth is an independent confounding factor. In other words, housing cost can still go up due to popula…

>It does because the poor people move into the housing that the upper middle class vacated That only works if the system is closed. If housing in the bay area goes down in price, you get people moving in from New York, LA, Boston, Austin, etc who previously avoided the area due to costs. Do you just ship off those poor people to those vacated homes hundred or thousands of miles away? >Population growth is an independ…

>That only works if the system is closed. If housing in the bay area goes down in price, you get people moving in from New York, LA, Boston, Austin

If that were true the bay area would have been empty long ago because of the ridiculous housing cost. Fact is most people won't change cities for lower housing cost.

>The reason housing in the bay area is so high has nothing to do with fixed material costs or else housing everywhere would be that astronomical. The reason housing is so high is because demand is high and the supply of land is limited. Land is the primary costs. You fight that by building vertically. The higher the building, the lower the marginal cost of land for each unit and therefore things become more affordable. But like I said in my first post, this doesn't happen if everything is left up to the market because it isn't the way to be most profitable, so the government would need to be involved to incentivize this.

Developers are putting 5 on 1 buildings every where they possibly can because it's the most economically efficient use of the land. They can't in the bay area because of zoning restrictions. Remove the zoning restrictions and you'd see skyrocketing density.

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

#184

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…

Doesn't this already exist in communal living places like Ollie in NYC?

Not quite. Ollie provides kitchens, along with other luxury amenities, which makes their price point still pretty high with the cheapest apartment being ~$2800/month.

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

#185

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…

> Specifically, housing affordability is 100%, entirely, a problem of artificial constraints on supply by city councils. Not just city councils. Residents, environmental groups, and special interest groups controlled by residents have a huge influence on limiting housing through legislation as well. Often places where housing is approved by the city are stalled in courts for years. City councils can control some of t…

It's worth noting that some of the groups you mention are motivated by a general opposition to rent seeking developers, and would be perfectly amenable to a 6 unit resident-owned coop in the same location.

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

#186
post #91

Oakland has built less housing per capita than SF over the last 5 years, as mentioned in the article. Appears like a few big projects finished construction and 2019 was an outlier year. The article implies this bounty will continue by citing “15,000 units in development” but doesn’t mention that SF has 4x as many “in development” and many projects linger in that category for a decade and many never get built.

For large projects it takes 3- 5 years to get through municipal approval.

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

#187
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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: home…

"You would naturally expect the value of a home to decrease by some amount each year."

If you deduct maintenance from your home value, it more-or-less does. I don't see why a maintained home "should" decrease in value, though. A lot of the value of a home is in the structure, which tends to wear much more gracefully than, say, a car's body.

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

#188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Real galaxy brain take there. “Housing prices have always fluctuated, therefore these fluctuations are unrelated to this other highly correlated factor”. Not that I disagree much with the substance of pointing out Prop 13, etc, but you should also definitely blame tech for loading an entire industry into a metro area.

> definitely blame tech for loading an entire industry into a metro area Supply and demand gonna supply and demand. It's weird to "blame tech" for existing and injecting a massive amount of jobs into our economy; there's no metro region that could have handled that growth without the same effect on price, and there is no singular entity responsible for concentrating tech into a single city instead of distributed more…

New York is significantly more affordable than the Bay Area though. Transit into manhattan from affordable places in NYC and New Jersey is quite quick, in contrast to the Bay Area where any place within reasonable commute time of SF or SV is just as expensive.

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

#189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not stated as opinion, and has some ridiculous statements like this in it: > 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…

> There is no drive for infinite growth, that I have found. What about Carbon emission projections. Isn't that proof of 'drive for infinite growth' ?

no, thats just growth

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

#190

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…

Gentrification is perfectly possible without new construction. Boston found apparently that luxury condos had a containing effect on gentrification overall - they reduced demand for other areas. Also wouldn't it be authentic inflation of value?

The tax bill objection also strikes me as odd given that it is synonymous with a windfall to owners - the renters it makes perfect sense for.

Post reply on HN