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

#231

Post by balfirevic » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 7:01 PM UTC

papreclip wrote: post #222

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

If people want to come live there you can either build homes for them or they will outbid existing inhabitants, housing prices will shoot up and less wealthy people will have to move out.

Those are the options. You can decide which one you look forward to more.

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

#232

Post by bradlys » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 7:04 PM UTC

fortran77 wrote: post #132

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…

Years ago, they had what were called "SRO" (Single-Room Occupancy) apartments. These often had shared baths or showers on each floor. These all went away by the late 60s in New York. They wouldn't be legal now. For one thing, buildings, or floors, were restricted to either men or women. And they didn't allow children, or more than one person/room. But they allowed people just getting started--working clearing tables,…

> "Neighborhood groups in Seattle have criticized new micro apartment SRO units, arguing that they "harmed community character and provided ... inhumane living conditions; due to these concerns, the city passed regulations that outlawed micro apartment/SRO construction."

Annoying. I lived in a SRO (I just called it a studio apartment with a shared bathroom) for 3.5 years that was run by a co-op apartment building. This was in Seattle. Having a shared bathroom was an annoyance (shared between 4 men - never more than a sentence said to two of them) but I was more than happy to put up with it versus having to deal with roommates. It was also cheaper than having roommates in a variety of houses that I looked at. I had more space than all those rooms for rent I looked at. I often wish I could've kept that kind of housing when I moved to the bay area because everything here is so outlandishly expensive just to get your own bit of space and that housing was so cheap for me.

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

#233

Post by helen___keller » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 7:06 PM UTC

ummonk wrote: post #163

helen___keller wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So yea, we should be complaining that, not AAPL but financial instruments, are expensive! And to the point of this topic I think this contributes to housing woes, atleast in major markets where there's a very low rental yields. I can afford to rent in my area, but I can't afford to buy because (with an identical unit in the same neighborhood) my monthly costs would go up by $1000 or $1500 or so, even with 20% down.…

>(because on the contrary, if you could buy bonds yielding 5% why would you hold rental properties that yield less before maintenance?) Because you're able to get a mortgage for lower interest than that?

Not if federal bonds are yielding 5% you're not

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

#234

Post by ogre_codes » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 7:11 PM UTC

rch wrote: post #185

ogre_codes wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Nobody ever says "I just don't want a new housing unit there". Every single one of those groups has some kind of justification for why they don't want new housing near where they are. Some say it's to prevent "Rent Seeking Developers", some say it's to improve the quality of local parks, sometimes it's because the unit they are replacing adds some "special character" to their block. In the end though they all have the exact same goal and same effect. It's all NIMBY bullshit, everyone is for affordable/ new housing unless it impacts them in the tiniest way, then suddenly they are against it.

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

#235

Post by helen___keller » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 7:13 PM UTC

mrep wrote: post #201

helen___keller wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I'm biased since I grew up in Chicago, but I think Chicago could have handled it fine with the endless farmland to develop with housing especially if the companies put their offices in high rises downtown as Chicago has double decker trains that go from the suburbs to downtown [0]. We also love high rise architecture so there are plenty of high rises to live in downtown if you want to. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w…

Growth only happens upwards or outwards. Your post seems to suggest that Chicago still has both available, which is (pleasantly) surprising to me as I was under the impression that every major american city had hit the limit on outward growth (usually because the roads are clogged by traffic and there's no political will to build more trains, so nobody wants more farmland developed).

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

#236

Post by mywittyname » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 7:17 PM UTC

jdmichal wrote: post #227

mywittyname wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Houses aren't great protection against homelessness because they don't address the root cause of being homeless: having no money or income. They can provide a buffer because it's harder to foreclose on a person than it is to evict them. While this additional time may certainly make a difference, in all likelihood the outcome of losing a job and not being able to find another one is probably the same.

You can't liquidate any built up equity either, since you probably need income or assets to get a rental or equity loan. So it's completely possible that you lose any built up equity in the event of a foreclosure too.

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

#237

Post by nosuchuser2 » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 7:18 PM UTC

fortran77 wrote: post #132

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…

Years ago, they had what were called "SRO" (Single-Room Occupancy) apartments. These often had shared baths or showers on each floor. These all went away by the late 60s in New York. They wouldn't be legal now. For one thing, buildings, or floors, were restricted to either men or women. And they didn't allow children, or more than one person/room. But they allowed people just getting started--working clearing tables,…

These still exist in San Francisco. In fact one of my junior co-workers lives in one.

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

#238

Post by btilly » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 7:18 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…

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

This is literally economics 101. Supply and demand curves.

Anything that decreases supply, increases price. Anything that makes some of that supply available cheaply, increases price for the rest. Anything that increases development risk or reduces the profit available to landlords, decreases supply and therefore increases price.

In short, drives for affordable housing mandates help cause the very problem that they intend to solve.

If you want to actually improve affordable housing, build a shit ton of housing. And built it close to where people work. This will reduce prices, reduce congestion, and reduce commutes. Everyone winds up better off.

And yes, the solution needs to be built in YOUR backyard. If you whine about that and whine about the problem, you're either willfully blind to facts, or a hypocrite. Get over it.

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

#239

Post by tick_tock_tick » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 7:21 PM UTC

lukifer wrote: post #225

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 uni…

Land Value Tax is one of my favorite overalls to the tax system proposed. Normal property taxes are one of those things that sounds great on paper but the actual implementation has shown us it just encourages horrible rent seeking behavior.

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

#240

Post by pdonis » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 7:21 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…

> Americans consider housing to be an investment.

Correction: Americans who own their homes consider housing to be an investment. But that in no way prevents housing from being "affordable" for renters.