Live data from Hacker News

Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

sfchronicle.com

271–280 of 373 posts

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#271
post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Start naming those other places and we will tell you why they are not viable or comparable. If there are so many it should be easy.

Singapore, Shenzhen to start. If we blow it in the US there are plenty of people ready to work for TikTok or whatever other overseas company takes over. Though I am surprised NYC doesn't have more tech jobs

NYC has a lot of software jobs, it's just not dominated by a single industry. If you mean exclusively tech, maybe yeah.

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> more supply brings down rents People say that on here all the time, but I have never seen that happen. Do you have an example where increased housing supply lowered prices aside from a natural or market disaster? Maybe, Detroit where people simply abandoned their homes with no intent to sell.

Japan is the classical example where they have national zoning rules permitting residential development in each zone. You can get a place in downtown Tokyo for like $300K USD. [1] > While the cost of housing is climbing in many global cities, the average middle-class family in Tokyo can still afford to buy a new, single-family detached home for $300,000. That’s right. The typical Tokyo starter home is a brand new thr…

The 300k in the article is the size of the loan, not the cost of a typical house.

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#273

I've developed several multifamily projects including my current focus, a 72-unit apartment development. Proposals like these, while admirable, usually miss the mark and have little to no impact on housing availability because they fail to accept that housing development isn't just about zoning. Impact fees, planning regs (traffic, parking, etc), planning delays, NIMBY fights, labor costs...these are all inputs into…

Hopefully this is exactly what you're asking for. one of a series of changes.

The bigger the change in a single effort, the faster it often dies. This one is already fairly large and what happens to rent will be important in the short term but also the long term where you could build enough to keep things stable or growing slower.

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#274
post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like an epic value destroyer. It won’t lower prices. Instead it will drive out owners to be replaced by leasers incapable of owning property. The only people that win are owners of multi-tenant properties, which are often commercial businesses.

If they're condos, you can own it, at least as much as you can own half a duplex. If they're rental units, that's also ok, more supply brings down rents and lower rent causes more landlords to sell. Extra supply does add downward pressure on prices one way or another. I don't see where the "value destroyer" is.

Condos are not advantageous to the owner. You're not building equity or able to borrow on the value, just ensure a very slow growth investment at risk of value destruction at the hands of the condo board.

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#275
post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming infinite variety exists, or can exist. That's so absurd that it's hard to believe it was meant in good faith. No, I can't just select from a menu. What if I want good schools and other facilities that few towns have, and proximity to the people/places that matter to me, and a town that's not so much single-family-home wasteland everywhere but the center? What if I want other people who aren't milliona…

> You're assuming infinite variety exists, or can exist. I'm assuming no such thing. I'm only assuming that there are places that would match your preferences better than where you currently live (or, if you want to be really precise, enough better to justify the costs of moving). Since people move all the time, for precisely that reason (I've done it myself, several times), that does not seem to me like a very extra…

> moving to a place that already matches your preferences better than where you are now

Still assuming there is such a a place. Why would you assume (again) that I didn't already research and consider alternatives before plonking down a third of my net worth on a house? I live where I do because it was the best match for what I'm looking for, but the fact that it's the best available doesn't mean I can't wish it to be better for myself and others.

Also, even if there were such a better place already, moving itself isn't a no-op. Moving even between ideal locations can be considered worse than staying even in one non-ideal location. Pulling kids out of a school system and away from all of their friends is particularly disruptive. "Love it or leave it" only works for one constituency - those who are fine with the status quo, who don't have or seek any connection to their communities, and don't see a need for there to be more of anything else. It doesn't even engage with people whose circumstances or beliefs are different; it just ignores their existence. I don't think that's constructive. Why are you so dead set against people solving problems instead of running away from them?

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#276
post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's microeconomics 101, so it's theoretically sound. Is there some effect in real life that prevents it from working the way the theory predicts? I don't think so. I would put the burden of proof on you, if you want to go against a solid theory. It seems self evident that more housing supply means houses stay on the market longer (there is lots of evidence for that) and that means sellers have more incentives to l…

Right, but do you have any historic examples? I see none.

The whole cloth construction of suburbia after WWII in the US. It opened ownership to a class of people who never had access prior.

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#277

Most of the land in my (Massachusetts) town is zoned for single-family homes. There are several identifiable square-mile or larger areas with nothing but homes plus maybe one school and one church. Maybe a gas station / Dunkin Donuts within fifteen-minute walking distance. That's no way to live. I'd love to change it, with greater zoning diversity and particularly that which allows higher density, but there valid obj…

>There are several identifiable square-mile or larger areas with nothing but homes plus maybe one school and one church. Maybe a gas station / Dunkin Donuts within fifteen-minute walking distance. This is just suburban America in general.

Sadly yes, but I don't think that model is even sustainable let alone desirable. We must do better. Since these things do take so much time, that means we must reach some agreement on what "better means" (which doesn't at all have to be the same everywhere) and get moving toward it.

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#278

I am of the idea that we need to focus on building new cities and more efficient roads to connect them. I don’t want to live in the Bay Area particularly, but when I have to go to SF, it sucks that sometimes it can take up to 2 hours to commute 30 miles. As a software architect, it feels as if the common recipe for solving a scalability problem is decentralization for which you need an awesome messaging system. I do…

If the CCP manages to not internally fall apart (which, IMO, it seems like it's not going to) we (US citz) are very much going to see how hilariously China has kicked our ass in the next few decades.

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best thing would be to ban AirBNB and rental housing. Those two artificially restrict the supply of housing to an absurd extent and drive up the costs of everyone else’s housing. I’m not alone in this - several cities have already banned AirBNB.

lol how do you figure that rental housing restricts total supply?

It inflates the prices of desirable areas because there is less housing available to purchase, especially for the currently renting tenants who ostensibly wish to someday become homeowners.

Re: Bay Area cities want to end single-family home zoning

#280
post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but do you have any historic examples? I see none.

That's because you didn't look.

You didn’t supply any for me to look at. Is this a child’s imagination game?

Guessing at some 9th grade economics theory aside, what does the actual data say?

Ignoring data like this is the only reason I can think of why people are willing to pay 10x more for a house of half the size that I paid.

Post reply on HN