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

San Diego rents declined following surge in supply

kpbs.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 253 posts

Re: San Diego rents declined following surge in supply

#141

Post by [deleted] »

tptacek wrote: post #97
vkou wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Easily. Many of those people have a correct observation in that new construction is just luxury housing, which is obviously unaffordable for people struggling with rent. What they fail to miss is that for every luxury unit that's built and is occupied, some well-off person moved into it... And out of a shitty, cheap unit that's now on the market.

Almost all new construction is luxury housing; it's what pencils out. The mechanism by which it reduces prices is by reducing demand pressure on older housing stock, which would otherwise be bought up and rehabbed by the same people moving into the "luxury" housing. The constraint that makes this work is increased density: so long as you're adding net units to the market, new construction at any price level will redu…

[deleted]

Re: San Diego rents declined following surge in supply

#142

Post by vkou »

noosphr wrote: post #93
vkou wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a beautiful state of affairs when owners of property can collude for their interests with almost no restrictions, but worker unions are almost entirely defanged.

With good reason: https://www.cfmeuinquiry.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0... I have paid between $3,000 and $6,000 personally to organized crime so a bunch of bogans can buy American suvs to kill cyclists more efficiently.

Meanwhile, nobody bats an eye when housing prices inflate $300,000 because existing homeowners are doing their fucking hardest to make sure that no new homes get built.

Re: San Diego rents declined following surge in supply

#143

Post by darksaints »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #111
darksaints wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the levels of density seen in Paris, San Diego could house 16 million people. That's city proper. The metro area could house 226 million people. You're gonna have to do a lot better job convincing me that 16 million people would move to San Diego if they just built more housing. Let alone 226 million.

Twist do you think happens to every city that has reached 16 million people? Did they become more popular or less? Given that I’ve lived in a city of that size, my answer will differ from yours (they become more expensive, not less). I’m confused on why you think paris is affordable and San Diego metro could somehow have enough water to grow to 220 million. The nearest comparison I can think of is south China Bay Are…

San Diego would be a very popular city at lower prices, but simply put there isn't enough population in the US to even think that demand could grow anywhere close to those levels. It would take a 50 year long gold rush, draining of other American cities, etc. The fastest growing city in modern history, Shenzen, grew 6000% in 30 years, and it could only do so because China simultaneously had the highest population growth in the world and the highest urbanization rate in the world.

At some point, demand is saturated, and it takes an extremely delusional belief that demand can perpetually grow so that prices never drop. We have proof in the article that prices can drop with even moderately fast construction rates. Keep going.

Re: San Diego rents declined following surge in supply

#144

Post by LudwigNagasena »

darksaints wrote: post #136
LudwigNagasena wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paris [1] and Copenhagen [2] have similar housing issues. Both are some of the most expensive cities in Europe [3]. Vienna has a large municipally owned and non-profit housing stock [4]. The situation in Tokyo was okay while it was growing its stock like crazy, it is facing an intensifying affordability crisis right now [5]. If there is a bliss point at which the housing crisis is solved with density before Kowloon W…

Housing price is a function of supply and demand and your argument had nothing to do with price of housing, you were only talking about density and its effect on livability. And it's very clear that people value living in cities that are much denser than San Diego. If people genuinely do not want a denser San Diego, there wouldn't be any point to restricting that growth. I personally would love to live in a city like…

> Housing price is a function of supply and demand

Yes, a function of supply and demand of everything. [1]

> your argument had nothing to do with price of housing, you were only talking about density and its effect on livability

My argument is that there is no reason to assume that increasing supply by blanket deregulation is a simple and effective solution to the housing crisis that has no downsides.

> If people "generally prefer" midrise cities, they will move there.

Many people don't want to move there because there are not enough economic opportunities, not because they dislike good traffic or green spaces.

> The great thing about allowing density is that people will stop moving in when they don't like it anymore.

If you solve all possible tragedies of the commons of that approach, sure.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonnenschein–Mantel–Debreu_the...

Re: San Diego rents declined following surge in supply

#145

Post by bsder »

Apreche wrote: post #21

But what about the desirability of San Diego? Was the decrease in rent only because of the increase in supply, or is there also lower demand?

I suspect lower demand was more likely (although more supply never hurts).

San Diego has a ton of contractors dependent upon the federal government. I imagine the shenanigans of the current administration caused a bunch of them to pack it in and leave town.

Re: San Diego rents declined following surge in supply

#146

Post by mcdeltat »

exabrial wrote: post #10

Incredible. So what you're saying is... we should just build more housing? Who would have thought that was the answer?

God most of the "discussion" around housing is such copium by obviously-biased people trying to convince everyone that we shouldn't have access to high quality housing. Yes, in the year 2026, despite all of humanity's achievements, it's of course IMPOSSIBLE to configure any type of society such that housing is decent and fair for all. IMPOSSIBLE, did you hear? Nope, it just won't work. Whatever your reason, you're wrong, society is perfect already and we cannot improve.

And the reasons people try to give... Just hilarious to evaluate from a high level. Oh, no we can't have good housing because supply and demand has determined what we have is optimal. Oh actually even if you did adjust supply and demand, it wouldn't fix the issue anyway, so don't try anything. Ah no you can't have more houses because then how will people commute?! Unsolvable! There aren't enough houses in a reasonable distance from urban centres? God well how about you just build a house in the outback where the supermarket is 200km away then! No we can't have more houses because then it will attract . But think of the children - how will they survive without a 10 acre backyard to play in??

It's so disgustingly painfully obvious to any reasonable person that we have no reason to have a housing crisis other than certain people collecting those fat stacks of cash, sweet cash.

Re: San Diego rents declined following surge in supply

#147

Post by kubb »

exabrial wrote: post #10

Incredible. So what you're saying is... we should just build more housing? Who would have thought that was the answer?

Yes, after all there are countless examples where doing just that lowered rent long term. Simple as that, a shame that dummies don’t get it.

In fact we should force current owners to sell in order build more densely on their land! And keep doing that until their housing valuation decimates.

Re: San Diego rents declined following surge in supply

#148

Post by tsimionescu »

vkou wrote: post #86
darksaints wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been told repeatedly by people who have a vested interest in maintaining high housing prices that supply and demand don't work at all, ever, for any reason, and high prices are no reason to build more housing. How do I reconcile these facts?!?

Easily. Many of those people have a correct observation in that new construction is just luxury housing, which is obviously unaffordable for people struggling with rent. What they fail to miss is that for every luxury unit that's built and is occupied, some well-off person moved into it... And out of a shitty, cheap unit that's now on the market.

> What they fail to miss is that for every luxury unit that's built and is occupied, some well-off person moved into it... And out of a shitty, cheap unit that's now on the market.

Ah yes, good old trickle down economics, applied to housing. It's obviously always true that the people moving into a new luxury home are coming from existing lower-luxury homes in the same part of the same city, and will immediately sell or rent those homes off at prices no larger than what they themselves had paid for them and no more.

And we're basing all of this on a tiny decrease in the prices of new rent offers in one of the most expensive in the USA, which built a tiny amount of extra homes recently, not even clear of what type. Clear causation well established.

Re: San Diego rents declined following surge in supply

#149

Post by tsimionescu »

bombcar wrote: post #131
BrenBarn wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that is necessarily true. I believe there are, for instance, many reasonably wealthy people who live somewhere outside California and would not move into a dumpy old apartment in LA or SF but might move into a fancy new one. In other words, they will not occupy an additional housing unit (in a given market) unless it is "nice" enough. I am in favor of building new housing, but I'm even more in favor of…

Taken to extremes you'll have all wealthy people living in California, and the rest of the country available to us plebs. The greatest tool we have to reduce wealth inequality is make it so people can buy homes - and the biggest levers we seem to have there are making supply available in general, and making jobs available where there's already supply.

> Taken to extremes you'll have all wealthy people living in California, and the rest of the country available to us plebs.

Which is exactly what people are afraid of happening, and what they mean by the crisis of housing affordability.

You can go and buy or rent a cheap house today in probably 90% of the localities of the USA. Of course, if you already live in those places, you probably don't have the money, because good work is very hard to find.

The problem of housing is that regular people want to live in NYC, and Chicago, and LA, and all of these places, and relatively near to where their jobs are, and they're seeing the rich own more and more of the space that could have allowed them to do so.

Re: San Diego rents declined following surge in supply

#150

Post by EduardoBautista »

vkou wrote: post #86
darksaints wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been told repeatedly by people who have a vested interest in maintaining high housing prices that supply and demand don't work at all, ever, for any reason, and high prices are no reason to build more housing. How do I reconcile these facts?!?

Easily. Many of those people have a correct observation in that new construction is just luxury housing, which is obviously unaffordable for people struggling with rent. What they fail to miss is that for every luxury unit that's built and is occupied, some well-off person moved into it... And out of a shitty, cheap unit that's now on the market.

As someone who grew up in San Diego and now lives in Dubai, I point towards how much of the construction companies in Dubai are partly government owned and were at once fully owned before the government sold shares in their IPOs.

I really don’t understand why the California government doesn’t just build luxury condos at a large scale for profit. The state will get revenue and lower housing costs overall.

Post reply on HN