Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

city-journal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 326 posts

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

#221

Post by sagarm »

slg wrote: post #146
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you keep building, eventually you will meet the pent up demand. Your scenario might match the first batch of new housing, but it can't continue indefinitely. Eventually you have more houses than people. There is a ton of pent-up demand in the bay area, because this has been going on for a long time. People who own houses there are going to fight you the whole way.

You are of course right in theory. There is some point in which things will stablize and demand is fully satisfied. However that is where your second paragraph comes into play too. It isn't just people who own the homes that are disincentivized from allowing that to happen, real estate developers also don't want housing to get to that point either. And who is the one deciding what gets built with a market approach to…

AFAIK developers have not formed a cabal that is trying to manipulate local real estate pricing.

Developers will build as long as it seems profitable to do so. Presumably this means that when the prices do go down, a few projects will end up in the red when they're done.

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

#222

Post by papreclip »

balfirevic wrote: post #41

I saw this tweet recently, by patio11: https://twitter.com/patio11/status/1199366332468224000 "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."

Tokyo is an 845 mi² megacity. Is population growth of 100k/yr something a city should aspire to? At a certain point I feel like some kind of family planning makes sense at larger levels of society just like it does with the family unit. I don't look forward to the day when there are 1000 mi² of concrete and 20M people crammed together where San Diego used to be

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

#223

Post by [deleted] »

jlmorton wrote: post #177
mrep wrote: 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…

[deleted]

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

#224

Post by sujNansnam »

edoo wrote: post #2

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.

Higher density construction makes more room for low density everywhere else.

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

#225

Post by lukifer »

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…

> It's time to re-think the idea of housing as an "investment."

Shameless policy plug: part of the reason that property tends to be a good investment is that a significant portion of its value derives not from improvements, but from "location, location, location": proximity to businesses and community services. Some economists (Henry George, Milton Friedman) have advocated shifting property tax to be based on the unimproved value of land, rather than its total/improved value, thus offsetting the (arguably unearned) benefits of sitting on a lot while the surrounding community accrues value.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

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

#226

Post by jdmichal »

downerending wrote: post #162
jdmichal wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always like to say that everyone is short a house, and your first property is just covering that short position. It's only properties after that first one that are investments.

That's quite catchy. But nonetheless, people can "cover" by renting or buying. And in particular, to the degree that mortgage payments are greater than the equivalent rent, one is indeed investing in the real estate market. This is often good, but it can actually turn out much worse than (say) simply parking the money in an index fund.

This is more meant to attack the idea of a primary residence being an "investment". If people insist on calling it an investment, then it's fair for me to insist that it's only covering a short position, because you need somewhere to live.

I think, if anything, this position is actually supportive of making an educated rent vs buy comparison, by discarding any kind of "investment" potential on the buy side.

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

#227

Post by jdmichal »

mywittyname wrote: post #199
Spellman wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another way I say it is that buying a house is a hedge against homelessness. TBH I stole that from an article I read a while ago that I can't seem to Google now...

Except you need cash flow or savings to afford a house, even a paid off one. If you don't pay your mortgage or tax bill, then someone is going to evict you.

I don't understand the criticism, because the cash-flow aspect certainly doesn't get better with options beyond a wholly owned house...

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

#228

Post by raven105x »

Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #66
zozbot234 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Moving isn't free. Most people you would assume to be not poor couldn't afford a move. Neither could they finance a move because of how leveraged they already are.

If you are an adult, and you have a car, you can move. If you have so many items that you can't "afford" to move, you sell some of those items and suddenly you not only have money for relocation, but less things to move as well. There will never be a country, society or civilization where the entire population can afford to live in the most expensive areas - and that's okay.

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

#229

Post by ip26 »

marcinzm wrote: post #19
edoo wrote: post #2

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.

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…

However, density taken to the extreme eventually leads to bedspace apartments, which seem like a pretty dystopic outcome.

I don't necessarily mind density and I'm not trying to invoke a slippery slope, but sometimes reading the pro-density folks it sounds like there is no recognition that there could be such a thing as too dense.

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

#230

Post by jdmichal »

saiya-jin wrote: post #117
jdmichal wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always like to say that everyone is short a house, and your first property is just covering that short position. It's only properties after that first one that are investments.

This doesn't cover many many people for various reasons. Ie I own 2 properties and I live in neither (house that I bought for my parents 1500km away, investment apartment in the mountains). I rent, because a) it doesn't make much sense to buy a property in traditional sense here where I live, too costly; b) we're not yet stabilized on location with first kid coming, and pinning us down to specific place before this i…

I mean, I guess I could refine it to say "primary residence" instead of "first property"? Otherwise, yea it's an analogy and it will break down at some point.

This is more meant to attack the idea of a primary residence being an "investment". If people insist on calling it an investment, then it's fair for me to insist that it's only covering a short position, because you need somewhere to live.

Post reply on HN