Live data from Hacker News

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

city-journal.org

321–326 of 326 posts

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

#321
post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reason midwestern cities hardly have housing bubbles like the coastal areas do is because old housing is cheap and competes with renting. Sure, but isn't the reason that housing is cheaper because those cities don't have anywhere near the level of demand that coastal cities have.

Yes and I'm not denying that. Also the midwest hasn't seen radical overvaluation of property that the coastal areas do. Since demand is so high there, the value of the property is not determined upon is "worth," but on someones ability to pay. You can see how that becomes a major issue when things crash. Suddenly many people lose out on the value of the place they paid for.

> Since demand is so high there, the value of the property is not determined upon is "worth," but on someones ability to pay.

The monetary value of the something is by definition what the highest bidder is willing to pay for it. How would you determine it otherwise?

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

#322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're making it sound like it's easy to hock a bunch of stuff. Ever try to sell a bed? If you can't take it with you and can't sell it then you're paying disposal and transportation fees only to buy the same junk again. It kind of seems like you're arguing from a place of privilege not experienced with the consequences of moving a family without help, without savings, without adequate work.

In Oakland? You just pull the bed to the side of the road and it's gone within a day, tops. Same with most metro areas. Also a lot of non-trash-strict places will take a mattress in the trash pickup if you just put it near the trash can and make it known it's trash. Also, for the same reason it's hard to sell a mattress, it's easy to buy one used in a new city. If you can afford to heat treat it, you can be sure ther…

>...pull the bed to the side of the road and it's gone within a day

That's littering. In most places this carries a substantial fine. Sure, you, might not get caught. I've known several tenants that got large disposal fee bills from their landlords for doing this. This happened whether they left their trash on the sidewalk, or by/in the bins.

>it's easy to buy one used in a new city. If you can afford to heat treat it, you can be sure theres no bed bugs, or if you have a job, buy a $200-$300 mattress from amazon - theyre surprisingly good these days.

Easy != free. Every expense adds up.

Deposit up front before getting back whatever's left after the previous landlord takes their scammy fees.

Lost wages. Costs of moving itself, and disposing of stuff that needs to be repurchased . Buying new stuff, even replacing a modest set of furnishings for a studio from second hand stores can pass $1k easily.

>no family, no savings, just a lot of manual labor/smart packing.

That has a price tag. You're not calculating it accurately. Just because you think you made all those moves cheaply doesn't mean you did.

Did you rent vehicles? Rebuy furniture? Stay at hotels? Mooch off friends or family? Did you eat out or sleep in your car?

These costs grow with a family. It might cost me $500 to move in a hurry. But it could cost a family $10k or more.

Did they stay long enough to build significant equity or make repairs? They might've lost money compared to renting. Some people do everything right and suffer bad luck forcing a move in bad conditions.

Do they need to rent or stay at hotels in between the move out and move in? It's not always possible to avoid this.

Even moving/re buying a minimal amount of furnishings for a family can cost thousands. Moving it is often cheaper. That adds time and labor either way. Or cost to avoid this. Some people also aren't physically capable of moving themselves.

It feels so easy and simple because you make these decisions for you and you alone.

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

#323
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.

there is no drive for "infinite growth". However so far the population keeps increasing at about .7% per year. Housing has to keep up to keep prices stable. If not, where do you suggest the people live?

.7% growth is an exponential rate. Cities are corporations and the ones that push density are looking for money.

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

#324
post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that was an example, not the entire point.

Lost on both of them. You should look up other useless stuff, like how many outlets are required in kitchens.

My argument is many of these represent small incremental costs and even if all of them were eliminated then affordability wouldn’t change in any appreciable degree.

On the other hand increasing supply (even if somewhat more expensive in a per unit basis due to regulations that neither of us can really say are good, bad or cost effective) will.

It’s the easy win.

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

#325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the cause/effect here? You seem to be laying the blame at foreigners, wall street, etc for causing the housing shortage, but the cause/effect of voters/local governments prohibiting building housing -> housing shortage is pretty straightforward, I don't see why pointing it out should be "shameful". I don't think homeowners are a unified block on this issue, but specifically the local organizations that put a…

Is it a housing shortage or an excess of population in urban centers? What are you going to do living like sardines in a can where high density housing has been approved if there is a high cost to scarce water/power/infrastructure and support services.

The population hasn't increased tremendously, it's the price that has gone up. So it doesn't seem like excess population is probably the problem.

You could lay the blame at demand for housing in cities (instead of supply). It seems less possible to make housing affordable by reducing demand though.

I don't think it's wrong to dislike cities and to want to live in the suburbs or countryside. But people will need to commute longer and longer and pay more and more to landlords unless more housing is built.

I think what makes sense is for the cities to expand to accommodate the demand, then be surrounded by suburbs. If the people who want to live in cities can live there, that should make the suburbs more affordable. And there is no way to have an affordable suburb right in the city anyway.

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

#326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The price of housing is determined by supply and demand, not the developer. Building new housing lowers prices for all preexisting housing.

> Building new housing lowers prices for all preexisting housing This is not true in the US. Housing in the US is valued solely by the value of the housing around it (called 'comps' or 'comparables'). Building new luxury housing raises the price for all preexisting nearby housing, because your comparables will now be based on whatever the luxury housing prices are (even if your own house is very modest, even if your…

> Building new luxury housing raises the price for all preexisting nearby housing

Based on this logic we should ban all new housing construction and ignore basic things like population growth.

Hint: It's only "luxury" because the market can bear it.

Post reply on HN