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

#31

Post by bonniemuffin » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 2:23 PM UTC

huntertwo wrote: post #24

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…

Two thoughts 1) Isn't a developer also making an investment when they build these high as hell micro-apartment apartment buildings? 2) How do you avoid a race to the bottom in terms of housing quality when you allow said micro-apartments? Do we want a culture where the poor are living in barely livable wage slave pods while the rich are living in abundant villas? I'm all for affordable housing but it seems too nuance…

Currently the poor are homeless or enduring multi-hour mega-commutes or stuffing a bunch of people into a single studio apartment. Well-located "barely livable wage slave pods" would be a huge improvement for a lot of people. I agree that the race to the bottom effect is a problem, but I think even the worst-case scenario would still be better than our existing housing situation.

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

#32

Post by dominotw » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 2:23 PM UTC

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…

> You opinion on density is just that, your opinion, not everyone agrees.

Sure but curious why that comment is downvoted and yours is not?

Disagreeement != downvote.

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

#33

Post by pas » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 2:23 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #27

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…

I agree with what you’re saying, but that’s overly simplistic. Infrastructure costs increase as you increase density. Charging an appropriate fee for new housing rather than limiting the growth is an efficient solution, but current methods allow for local corruption. That’s just one of the hidden reasons for our current system. Another, is most people want to live as far as possible from poor people.

> Infrastructure costs increase as you increase density.

They increase much slower than the efficiency gains from having a higher density and the rate of per capita costs decrease from having much more people pay for those costs.

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

#34

Post by AuthorizedCust » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 2:25 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 law of supply and demand notwithstanding, are there any cases where increased housing supply has been the proximate cause of a decline in housing values?

By "proximate", I don't mean "my home's value dropped more after the bubble popped than I think it should have because [points to new housing]". I mean the housing built as a consequence of relaxed laws directly caused the decline.

Houston seems like a good case study as it lacks zoning and vast swaths don't have deed restrictions, either.

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

#35

Post by dominotw » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 2:26 PM UTC

arcticbull wrote: post #3

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.

Not being able to afford a house decreases quality of life infinitely more than some increased density.

Wouldn't the world simply increase population where this is still the case even if we build more housing though?

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

#36

Post by edoo » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 2:26 PM UTC

Lazare wrote: post #17

edoo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can't afford a house there maybe you should consider moving somewhere more affordable.

If you don't like the density, maybe consider moving somewhere with lower density?

Already did. I never realized how bad I had it.

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

#37

Post by sampo » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 2:27 PM UTC

huntertwo wrote: post #24

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…

Two thoughts 1) Isn't a developer also making an investment when they build these high as hell micro-apartment apartment buildings? 2) How do you avoid a race to the bottom in terms of housing quality when you allow said micro-apartments? Do we want a culture where the poor are living in barely livable wage slave pods while the rich are living in abundant villas? I'm all for affordable housing but it seems too nuance…

> Do we want a culture where the poor are living in barely livable wage slave pods

At least the poor would have the choice between the barely livable pod in downtown, or a house 2 hours commute away. Currently they can only choose the latter.

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

#38

Post by Daishiman » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 2:28 PM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #10

nugget wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t many people love cities specifically because of density and the diversity of opportunities that usually follows?

There's a trade-off though, if it comes at the cost of smaller and worse living accomodation for themselves. And you have to be careful that the transport and other infrastructure can keep up. Transport in particular always seems to get ignored.

What do you mean? Transport, considered to be the time it takes to get to your relevant destinations, has been objectively worse in pretty much every suburb I've lived in.

A 15-minute drive at maximum speed still takes longer than a 5 minute walk to the supermarket. Most suburbs end up experiencing traffic jams, with no option of foot traffic, subways, or other alternatives.

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

#39

Post by sokoloff » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 2:28 PM UTC

GhettoMaestro wrote: post #4

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’re tone deaf. CA is in the midst of their worst homeless crisis ever. Density is a long ways behind my concerns for the middle-class homeless whom have been priced out of any meaningful housing options.

Is “middle-class homeless[ness]” a significant/common occurrence, absent mental illness or drug addiction as complicating factors (excluding those as changing housing supply/demand point is likely not the solution there)? That would indeed be depressing but also fairly surprising to me.

What would “middle class” mean if it didn’t include secure housing as a significant part of the definition?

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

#40

Post by bluGill » Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 2:29 PM UTC

arcticbull wrote: post #22

Nursie wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a trade-off though, if it comes at the cost of smaller and worse living accomodation for themselves. And you have to be careful that the transport and other infrastructure can keep up. Transport in particular always seems to get ignored.

Right but lets focus on one problem at a time. With more people in the city, you have a bigger tax base, meaning more tax revenue, meaning you can spend more to improve infrastructure like public transit. The population of SF has only increased by 111K (14%) in the last 20 years. Imagine what we could do with twice as many people contributing tax revenue?

It isn't just tax base. If you have a lot of people taking transit you can recover the costs of the system just from riders paying their fare, and the riders are saving money over the cost for insuring a car for a year. Less dense areas cannot do this, both because people need to go farther (less dense means you have to go farther to get there), and because there are less riders.

Dense areas need less taxes in general: the cost difference of a big pipe vs a small one isn't nearly as much as the amount the big pipe can carry. However this is more than made up by the fact that the more people to spread it out with means many services that were not affordable are now cheap and those cheap things add up (you don't need a library, and at farm density you can't afford one - but at city density it is cheap per person so you pay a little more), you need to ask if those extras you can have are worth it.