At the density of Kowloon Walled City, the entire population of India could fit within the city limits of San Diego. Nobody is asking for that, silly.
We could 1.5x the density of San Diego and still have the livability of Copenhagen. We could 3x the density of San Diego and still have the livability of Vienna. We could 5x the density and still have the livability of Paris. 8x and still have the livability of Tokyo. We have a ridiculously low bar to pass, all we have to do is allow it.
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 Walled City levels, it surely not at Tokyo levels. What do you think that bliss point is? Why do you think it is a better solution to grow city densities to those levels rather than trying to make it easier to live and work in compact, mid-rise 15-minute cities that people generally seem to prefer? [6]
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 Tokyo. People have different preferences. Don't force your preferences on me. If people "generally prefer" midrise cities, they will move there. There's a reason why so many people live in Tokyo when there are plenty of less dense cities in Japan. The great thing about allowing density is that people will stop moving in when they don't like it anymore.
> 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.
I think both dense and not dense areas suffer from tragedy of the commons. The only difference is in the suburbs the effect is spread out, so you can kind of pretend it doesn't exist. Which also means that each individual person has the potential to cause more damage.
That's the issue. Most Americans don't want the entire population of India to be in San Diego. To some of us, San Diego is one of the best areas in the country. Why destroy it?
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?!?
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 reduce prices in 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.
Private companies are good at removing inefficiencies. As long as there is competition, private companies will offer better service at lower price. State-owned companies work better in cases where maintaining healthy competition is not possible, or where inefficiencies are not a concern.
In particular, Gulf states have virtually unlimited money, which means that it doesn't matter whether a new construction costs $400k or $800k or what.
It's very rare to find state-owned companies which main goal is to provide service to the citizens and they turn a profit without some form of government subsidies along the way. Let me ask - if you think there is huge market for new construction and it's easy to make profit, why don't you start a construction company?
It's 'easy' if you have inside connections with the planning and zoning committees and utility companies. I recently developed a property worth about $250k for about $100k. The building process itself is relatively cheap (land + cost construction way cheaper than value of a finished property) and straightforward, everything else is not.
The only reason why I was able to get it done as a random person was because I used a non-commercial loophole to not have to get the inspections that are used as hostile clamp on disfavored competition, and the utility companies that could have charged me a gazillion dollars saw that I was just a guy with a family and took pity on my situation (they are used to dealing with large commercial developers) and gave me the easiest out at every opportunity.
If you are a favored developer you can get things done as easily and almost as cheaply as I did and make vast profits. If not you are fucked and you barely break even because either government workers, or government franchised utility monopolies fuck you at every turn. I lost count of how many times I basically saved $20k-$30k because someone decided not to fuck me that day over some inane detail that in the end doesn't actually make any meaningful difference (the only time I got unlucky -- a utility worker made me redo a survey which cost thousands and then LOLed later that I never needed it, eventually it turned out this person was literally just making shit up which is an astonishingly common tactic when some asshole just wants to delay dealing with you. I was only able to fire this utility company because I was on the border between two monopoly lines which created an unusual point of actual competition, and the next one used a ton of creativity to get the same thing done for relatively next to nothing).
Okay so basically the problem is a system of overly complex rules that don't serve any purpose besides cementing the current influence zones. Creating a state-owned company to navigate these rules won't make the whole process cheaper, only changing the rules themselves will.
Why? The level of graft would be breathtaking. No doubt some major builders would get preference for cost plus budgets on inflated numbers. Politicians would steer money to their supporters.
They’d like be building at 1.5 to 2 times what private does.
Because government bureaucrats need to be let in on the take to make it worth their time. Graft is how that gets done. Otherwise they usually just stonewall housing.
Paying $1 to government shills and corrupt capitalists for every $1 spent on actual housing is still a hell of a deal compared to not being able to build anything, which is the status quo in many locked up parcels. A moral standoff and resting on your principles of not funding graft sounds nice, but doesn't accomplish anything.
>Paying $1 to government shills and corrupt capitalists for every $1
And then some forensic accounting happens and a paper is published citing that government built homes cost twice as much as privately built, and the program stops.
It doesn't seem to stop all the other graft-ridden wasteful parts of government.
Personally I despise the idea of public housing, but once something is there, it becomes easier to develop. There has to be some way of enticing all the factions stopping housing with productive greed rather than anti-productive greed. If public built housing gets something where there was nothing until the first paper gets published or whatever, maybe it's worth doing a deal with the devil.
There were two shitty, cheap units. The people in the first were forced to move out when a developer bought it, tore it down, and built the luxury unit. They have been homeless/going into debt renting a third slightly-less-shitty third unit. Without the first shitty, cheap unit, the second's competition was that third slightly-less-shitty unit; they raised their prices commensurately.
The well-off person moved into their nice new unit. The poor person's choice is staying in the unit they can't afford, or spending thousands on moving costs to go to a shittier unit that they also can't afford. Oh, and the city "motivated" the luxury unit's development with tax incentives. A larger percentage of the poor person's check is now going toward paying that back.
This is the reality once you get past simple narratives and reconcile with the fact that building tons of luxury units hasn't actually moved the needle.
The whole point of this article is that building tons of new "luxury" units actually did lower rents, moving the needle exactly as predicted.
The zoning code in the location of your anecdote must be completely suffocating, or that developer would not have left so much money on the table by failing to add more units.
Where I live, a developer recently tore down the cheap, shitty house on the corner and built not one new "luxury" townhouse, but eight of them. Across the street, a larger building was recently demolished, and now they're putting in twenty-one new units. Two cheap homes lost: but a net of twenty-seven homes gained. That represents a whole lot of competitive pressure taken off the lower end of the market.
It's not traditional development lowering rates. Think about the math. You've replaced two cheap homes with twenty seven "luxury" homes. How would that lower the average price? You've weighted the average rate with an order of magnitude more samples on the top half of the range. The only way to see a drop is for there to be a precipitous drop in low-end rates, or a significant increase in low-end, non-traditional development. I think it's the latter, because California has uniquely supportive ADU policy, and implemented it on a timeline that tracks with the rate decreases.
EDIT: Also the end of ZIRP and refinancing finally coming around.
Oh, wouldn't it be funny if lower rates had nothing to do with building volume, and everything to do with landlords having to pull units out of warehousing because their interest rates increased recently?
Thank you. Too many people genuinely believe it is a simple supply and demand problem. Housing is a much more complicated "commodity" than people want to concede.
Where do you see developers buying up units to tear them down and replace them with the same number of units?
When I see properties getting redeveloped it's usually a tiny house getting replaced with an apartment building. Often it's a strip mall or surface parking lot that wasn't housing anyone getting replaced.
I don't think I've ever seen a redevelopment that doesn't significantly increase the amount of living space.
>Where do you see developers buying up units to tear them down and replace them with the same number of units?
DC. And when there are more units afterwards, they're luxury. Building more units doesn't magically lower rates; it has to drive landlords of older units to lower their rates. Did that actually happen? You'd have to prove it. Something else could have, like increased non-traditional competition or the end of ZIRP and refinancing horizons coming to bear.
Row houses often become more expensive row houses. It may not be the bulk of "new" housing in DC, but you asked where it happens, and that's where. So, chill.
In any case, gentrification, infamously kicked thousands of families out of projects, subsidized housing, and regular rentals, replacing them with... definitely not affordable housing. Rent has only gone up. And unless you're a builder, the goal is not building, it's only a means to the end of putting people in affordable homes. If building isn't doing that, it's a policy failure, and other avenues need to be pursued.
The question is whether the well-off person moved in from the same market, or from elsewhere. (Also, whether they vacate their previous unit or, e.g., keep it as a vacation home.)
None of those are really pertinent because it doesn't change the fact that the well-off person is going to occupy an additional housing unit in this scenario no matter what.
The question is whether it's going to be new construction that they occupy or existing construction. If you're not well-off you'd want that decision to end up with "new construction" so you can move into "existing construction" at a lower rent/mortgage than if new construction didn't exist.
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 reducing wealth inequality. I think we can do both, but we need to be deliberate about it.
> 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.
That's the point, the "dumpy old apartment" was never going to be the thing stopping the rich person from moving in.
Due to overlap in preferences amongst a multitude of people, the rich person would free up the housing they like by buying it from whoever, who would then free up slightly-less-good housing in the area by kicking out someone else (with money, to be clear) and so on down the chain until you get to the "dumpy old apartment", whose rent now rises because there are more people interested in moving into it due to lack of other options.
New housing, even if it's new 'luxury' housing, breaks this chain of housing migrations in the area before it gets to buying people out of their dumpy old apartments.
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.
"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"
It's not clear in your phrasing, but it sounds like this is a casual correlation. It's not... Many people only want to live in these cities because it's the ONLY way to get work, given a choice they would quickly move out.
Or, maybe the jobs are there because people companies want to hire want to live there. We have a way of testing this now given that remote work is a thing. We can see if people would rather work remotely from a cheap house in rural Kansas and have nothing to do in the evenings or live in an expensive apartment in an exciting city where their job is.
It is a cycle that always leads to increased population density, and has done so since the dawn of agriculture. People tend to go where there are more people, and then work and entertainment happens where most people are, which attracts more people, and so on. This was as true in Ur as it is in NYC.
>I am in favor of building new housing, but I'm even more in favor of reducing wealth inequality. I think we can do both, but we need to be deliberate about it.
> 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.
A house next door to me sat vacant for 4 years here in Vancouver. The owner couldn't sell at the asking price. The owner never lived in the house himself ever. He couldn't lower the price because then he would be losing money (selling it for less than what he bought it for).
Over that 4 year period, immigration to Canada dropped dramatically.
It just recently sold for slightly lower than the asking price (but slightly more than what the owner had bought it for 4 years prior). It was sold to a new immigrant to Canada. At least the new owner is actually living in it.
Why would developers want to build so much supply that the price drops?
If demand for cars skyrockets then you (eventually) get more cars at the same price coz the manufacturer can just make more.
If everybody wants to buy up land because "god isnt making it any more" you get less land at an even higher price which makes it even more attractive as a store in value.
So no, supply and demand doesnt really work for land the way it works for everything else.
Land needs to be taxed a lot to create enough supply and in California prop 13 quite deliberately did the precise opposite of that.
Zoning that reduces buildable footprint and/or height artificially increases demand for land. If the only way to build a home is to buy a 9000 sqft lot, then my demand for land is 9000 sqft. If you can build 18 homes on that same lot, my demand for land is 450 sqft.
Land definitely needs to be taxed, but not without the zoning changes first to allow more to be built on less.
Zoning is the hobby horse of property developers. They're endlessly frustrated by the way zoning prevents them from building the most profitable construction - no matter whether there is a good or a bad reason for it (sometimes it's good sometimes it's not).
This inspires a lobbying and public outreach effort to try and convince people that relaxing zoning rules will fix everything.
As with many corporate lobbied for campaigns, it may be a good idea in general (e.g. net neutrality) or it may not be but it's definitely never the panacea it's sold as by the well funded PR campaign.
This is empirically not supported. Relaxing zoning rules works extremely well.
Look at Japan, look at any metropolitan U.S. city that has actually leaned into it. Europe has had mixed use zones for effectively centuries and is not the dystopia that NIMBYs proclaim will appear in the absence of zoning.
It is unpopular because we subsidize the lives and assets of people who “have things” through zoning policy that they make.
Up to a point. Yes, it is nice to mix housing and retail and the like, and some zoning laws prevent this. But you have to look back into the 19th century before zoning laws existed and you had things like slaughterhouses opening in residential neighborhoods. Zoning has good reasons to exist.
Residential and commercial can work pretty well together, up to the point of noise and chemical risks. Industrial will pretty much always need to be zoned because of different hazards it presents.
Correction: zoning had good reasons to exist, but it doesn't anymore. Everything that we used to solve that problem is better solved by environmental laws than it ever was by zoning. It turns out that if you make companies pay for their environmental pollution via noise, chemicals, air pollution, etc., they tend to locate their industrial capacity where it is easier to solve or less impactful.
And while every single reasonable but outdated justification for zoning has slowly disappeared, zoning has been thoroughly co-opted by greedy sociopaths and meddlesome wannabe HOA presidents who want to control their neighbors and police aesthetics and keep out undesirables and inflate the value of their investments.
TFA shows that it was zoning changes that allowed the influx of housing and lower prices. You can find similar articles across the country everywhere that has had significant relaxation of zoning restrictions, like in Minneapolis, Austin, and Seattle (just off the top of my head). This includes places where building code and permitting processes have gotten more arduous while the zoning was relaxed.
I don't care if it is a panacea or not...If you want to convince me that restrictive zoning is not the most significant cause of our housing affordability crisis, you'd have to find some better proof than "developers like upzoning and developers are bad people".
>If everybody wants to buy up land because "god isnt making it any more" you get less land at an even higher price which makes it even more attractive as a store in value.
Yes but people aren't trying to buy land, they are trying to buy housing, which yes, has a foundation on land but also can increase vertically without significantly increasing the land usage.
It does, because factories don’t have unlimited production capacity. See what happened when Covid hit, or when interest rates go down. Used car prices go up with it too.
If the alleged people actually said this, and they wanted to "maintain high prices", then why would they oppose more building? If they believed "supply and demand don't work at all", then more supply wouldn't hurt their goal of maintaining high prices.
A former trustee in the inner-ring suburb in which I live owns and manages rental housing throughout the municipality and is a vocal opponent of building new housing, and of the argument that supply and demand functions in the housing market. I could screenshot him for you, but you have no idea who he is, so: just take my word for it, these aren't "alleged" people. They're a major force in local politics around the country, which is where this fight is primarily being fought.
Leveraged investors in real estate become incredibly "conservative" really fast - not politically but in the "don't ever change anything holy shit I'm on a knife edge" even if the changes would be a net benefit for them.
For the same reason that NIMBYs care so much about urban trees or spotted owls. They don't actually give a shit about them, they just are willing to say or do anything to sabotage the process of increasing housing supply.
I'm as big a YIMBY as you'll find, and urban trees are really important to making a city a nice place to live. There's no contradiction to those positions - just, you know, build more housing and plant more trees. (Spotted owls, of course, have nothing to do with urbanism, so I don't know how they got dragged in here.)
Being a NIMBY I want to live in the neighbourhood I bought a house in, not the one someone who can leave with a months notice feels like turning it into.
Being a homeowner, you get a title to your lot, not your entire neighborhood. You have no legal claim on your neighbor's home. If you want a legal claim on your neighbor's home, join an HOA. Or just buy it.
I'd be willing to bet you every last dollar on the planet that if you read your deed, you will find zero claims to any particular zoning. Zoning is not a transferable property right. It can be changed for any reason at any time.
I’d love to take that bet. My deed (in Texas) states that my lot is subject to the rules of the subdivision which include a number of zoning style restrictions. (They’re called “deed restrictions” and are very common AFAIK.)
The subdivision rules are changeable only with a supermajority vote. I believe the city (Houston in my case) is prohibited by the state from unilaterally changing them.
(I wouldn’t mind more free property rights!!! I find TX “liberty” is often biased towards $$$)
I would gladly see that bet through because that's not zoning, even if its effects are the same as zoning. Subdivision rules are a restrictive covenant (much like how HOAs work). Zoning is not a restrictive covenant, it is by definition a municipally-reserved restriction on land uses, and can be changed at the discretion of the jurisdictional authorities.
I've actually encouraged NIMBYs to use those HOA-style restrictive covenants if they're so adamant on their "zoning" never changing, because a restrictive covenant is actually a volunatory restriction. A city cannot come in and remove them willy nilly (they do in special cases like red-lining, but it is a politically arduous process). Someone with a restrictive covenant by definition has more protection from their neighborhood changing than they would if they just relied on zoning.
The problem is, nobody likes restrictive covenants, and they don't like the HOA-like structures that govern them, and they really don't like the punchable-faced people that seek power in those kinds of organizations.
... with a vote. And subject to the takings clause.
The government can also just take your deed and property, again subject to the takings clause, so long as they pay you back. Or claim someone was slinging crack there or something and not pay you back.
If you're including things subject to the democratic process all the above is on the table.
Also plenty of things written into the deed don't mean shit. It's quite common to read a deed that says something like, in more fluffed terms "no black people allowed." This got baked into lots of deeds back in the day and never got changed because removing covenants to a deed is usually next to impossible. It doesn't mean dick because again the government can simply add or subtract by fiat what your deed actually means.
What your deed is and isn't is a lot closer to how zoning works than you think. Ranchers found this out when their transferrable private property grazing rights tracing back to the very founding era of the USA got usurped by the government and ultimately the BLM who turned around and actually said they're public federal property (which resulted in things like, the Bundy standoff).
If your neighborhood's zoning isn't in your deed, how are you going to claim it was taken from you?
Zoning is a restriction on your rights...when they are lifted, you are gaining more tangible rights, not losing them. If anything, the takings clause should have applied to properties where zoning was introduced...not where it was removed.
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.
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.
And then a decade of that later, all the people bitching about immigration will be wondering why the country's demographics resemble that of a nursing home, and why the tax base and the social safety net has collapsed.
Hospital wait times in Canada, Australia and the UK are _years_ for elective procedures. I had a health scare three years ago and got put on the public waiting list. I still get a message every 6 months to remind me that I'm on the waiting list.
I've still to advance far enough up the queue to get a date booked.
It can always collapse more. Ask anyone who lived through an actual economic collapse. (As opposed to the kinds of minor corrections that the West has seen over the past few decades.)
Your imagination is very limited if you can't think of what the long-term consequence for a country with an average age of 41.6, a fertility rate of 1.25, and a huge political block of nativists who can't do basic arithmetic, are asking for something incredibly stupid, are getting exactly what they want, good and hard.
You solve a housing shortage by... Building more housing. Not by driving young people who want to do work out of your community.
Destroy your society today so it doesn't get potentially destroyed in 30 years is certainly a take.
>You solve a housing shortage by... Building more housing.
It's not housing. It's roads. Hospitals. Schools. Sewers. Power lines. Everything needs to be rebuilt. That means that the immigrants who are coming in must be engineers, doctors, teachers, tradies. Instead we get uber drivers and IT consultants. There aren't enough qualified people in the world to keep up with current immigration to the west. The only solution is to lower immigration until the ratio of qualified people coming in matches (or hopefully exceeds) the ratio of qualified people already here. Anything else lowers living standards and makes a right wing reaction inevitable.
> Destroy your society today so it doesn't get potentially destroyed in 30 years is certainly a take.
Immigrants coming in today aren't 'destroying society'.
And it's not 'potentially'. It's certainly. Nativists have no answers to it, and if they actually presented the dilemma of 'We can keep Pablo out, and also anyone currently under the age of 40 will have to work until they are 75', not a single person would give their ideas a moment of thought.
> It's roads. Hospitals. Schools. Sewers. Power lines. Everything needs to be rebuilt.
Why does it need to be rebuilt on anything beyond a regular depreciation schedule in a steady-population situation?
And by the way - Canada needs to invite at least half a million people a year in order to maintain the population at a steady-state. That number is the table stakes.
>And by the way - Canada needs to invite at least half a million people a year in order to maintain the population at a steady-state. That number is the table stakes.
In 2025 total deaths in Canada were 334,699, totals births were 368,928.
> In 2025 total deaths in Canada were 334,699, totals births were 368,928.
If you think that's not a problem, stop cherrypicking numbers, and look at Canada's population pyramid. And then tell me what will happen as the big fat middle, that starts at 25... ages out of work. Do you think that little sliver of 0-24s are going to be holding everyone else up?
Those are the numbers you need to be looking at. Oh, and emigration isn't zero, but someone leaving the country isn't counted as a death on the census. 120,000 people emigrated in 2025.
In that case we aren't in a steady state population case and we need to build schools, hospitals, public transport, water, power etc.
Which means that we need stop importing low skill labor in the IT and services industry and move to high skill labor.
The developing world unfortunately doesn't produce enough for the current immigration levels in the west. Ergo we must lower immigration until the ratio of high skill migrants is equal or higher than that of the native population.
I think this us a fair feeling. One chooses a house based in part on the area as the specifics of the house itself. Wanting the neighborhood to remain unchanged is a reasonable desire.
Unfortunately, as much as you desire it, it's not something you can control. Neighborhoods change all the time. That good school you moved to be close to can decline, people with the wrong politics can move in next door, the convenient mall may close.
Yes, local politics gives you a vote. But of course we all get the same vote, homeowners and wannabe homeowners.
So, I think your want is valid, alas though you have no rights to your neighborhood and so your want is just what you want.
Of course you should stand up for your wants. But wants are not rights. So it's equal to everyone else's wants.
I'm upvoting you because your desire is not invalid. However, and I don't mean this perjorativly, your wants don't legally count for much. Just as much as any other person.
Part of the problem (or the solution depending on what side you stand on) is that only residents get a say, and often you find that the renters become just as nimby as the owners, especially if rent controls or other advantages are in place.
And those outside have a very hard time voting where they want to live but don't.
(The old solution was to make a new city that was like you wanted, with blackjack and hookers, hell forget the city we'll just build the strip!)
If demand picks up because supply increases, you will reach the previous equilibrium even with more supply. It isn’t rocket science, there is a price people are willing to pay to live in SD, and the market will keep gravitating to that price unless demand is somehow limited. The price people are willing to pay can even increase as density makes brings in things (eg culture, job opportunities) that make the city more desirable (eg see Hong Kong).
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 Area population (87 million), and if you think that those cities are affordable…I’m guessing we really have to agree to disagree.
> Twist do you think happens to every city that has reached 16 million people?
It's not about the exact number, it's that one city is not going to 10x in population from getting the price of housing down to "still a city but not skyrocketing".
> I’m confused on why you think paris is affordable
Compared to San Diego, it does seem to be significantly more affordable, and mainly because of rent.
> and San Diego metro could somehow have enough water
The most expensive source of water, desalination, should be under $1 per day per person. And there's probably better options.
> to grow to 220 million.
That number is a silly number to explain density, not a proposal.
> and if you think that those cities are affordable…
No, the only comparison point was Paris, and the density of Paris.
There is no way for San Diego to grow that fast overnight anyways. If it grows gradually, and it’s still desirable, that will attract more jobs and more people eventually, the city won’t become more affordable (long term) until it stops attracting new residents. Otherwise, new housing simply provides temporary relief while the city grows.
Paris is a good example, I think, of a city expensive by French standards. My point was that if your theory is you can build to affordable, there should be at least one example on the planet where that actually worked (even Tokyo is considered expensive by Japanese standards).
> the city won’t become more affordable (long term) until it stops attracting new residents
I really hope we don't have indefinite large amounts of US population growth. And if we mostly stabilize the population, then it only takes a few 16M cities to absorb all the demand and make the relief permanent.
> Paris is a good example, I think, of a city expensive by French standards. My point was that if your theory is you can build to affordable, there should be at least one example on the planet where that actually worked (even Tokyo is considered expensive by Japanese standards).
Then consider this particular argument not that you can build to a nebulously defined "affordable", but that you can build to "San Diego has between 100% and 1000% of its current population with rent 40% lower than it is right now".
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.
Yet the rent in Paris is still too high for an average French resident; and while rent is lower than in San Diego, the price of an apartment is higher. And, of course, median salary in San Diego is far higher than in Paris.
>Yet the rent in Paris is still too high for an average French resident
It's obviously not just about more housing, but more housing per capita.
3% of the French population lives in Paris proper, and roughly 20% in the metropolitan area compared with 0.42% in San Diego and ~1% in San Diego MSA [1].
More hosing will help Paris along with San Diego to put downward pressure on prices.
Water is the primary limiter on city population sizes in the west. I wouldn’t be surprised if San Diego wasn’t at its limit already with respect to water resources, but I haven’t looked into it. Desalination could improve that.
If we could have Chinese work crews come in and build housing, especially 30 story concrete towers that are popular in Asia, we could build fairly cheaply, that isn’t really the limitation (it’s easier to solve than getting water to those new units for expanded population).
Weird title for a paper that argues that "Government intervention is critical to ensure that supply is added at prices affordable to a range of incomes". I would personally classify that position as "supply skepticism".
Short term. Long term the market will change to equilibrium. If you are buying, just lock in lower housing prices now. If you are renting without rent control, you get one or two years of reasonable rates and then it will go nuts again.
Buffalo has 50% as much housing now as it did at its peak, since demand dropped and housing was just razed rather than maintained. There are lots and lots of cities in the USA that aren’t San Diego, LA, SF, Portland, Seattle, NYC, Boston, … and they have plenty of supply that there is no demand for. You can buy a house for cheap in Toledo. For some reason, people would rather pay $3000/month to live in San Diego than $700/month to live in Buffalo or Toledo. It shouldn’t be a mystery why.
I lived in Beijing for 9 years so I get a different perspective. But ya, the market for people who want to live in Beijing rather than Chengde or Langfang is surprisingly vast, and Beijing has a resident system to prevent at will migrations.
It's the same motivation as racists: they need some way to feel superior to the people that they despise. If the entire world stopped swearing today, these people would just find something else to use in their supremacist proxy wars.
Nobody cares, nor should they. Anthropic broke nearly every ToS of every website that they scraped data from. The AI robber barons just want to monopolize intellectual property violations, and I'm gonna cheer on any robin hoods that take it back from them.
They're not inherently offensive. They're vulgar, but that isn't the same thing as offensive. Vulgarity is nothing more than a classist concept anyway. This is just another case of religious extremists making everything in this world worse for everyone else.
The Tesla Semi was groundbreaking when they revealed it nearly 10 years ago. But now there are dozens of electric truck models, and they get delivered in substantial quantities for over a year now. At least in Europe.
reply