←back to thread

61 points pseudolus | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.002s | source
Show context
taeric ◴[] No.45186175[source]
Glad to see the final section basically cover that this is not actually a problem. I sort of wish the headline was more of the "Why you shouldn't be worried about private equity buying your neighborhood."

Why and how did that ear worm infect so many people?

replies(2): >>45186253 #>>45187121 #
xnx ◴[] No.45186253[source]
> Why and how did that ear worm infect so many people?

It's a story they want to believe.

The big bad out-of-town corporation is causing the housing crisis and not the complex web of dozens of factors: existing owners wanting to protect their largest asset, more people wanting to live in fewer places, inflation, tariffs on Canadian lumber, safety standards, etc.

replies(2): >>45186474 #>>45186536 #
crooked-v ◴[] No.45186474[source]
Ultimately it's not really that complex to explain: there just literally aren't enough physical housing units of whatever kind in major US cities to meet demand (https://www.fanniemae.com/research-and-insights/perspectives...), so prices keep going up.

Unfortunately, there are a ton of people who will deny that that factual, well-studied shortage exists, and will try to blame its effects on anything and everything else even tangentially related.

replies(1): >>45186934 #
lazide ◴[] No.45186934[source]
There are ~ 15 million unoccupied houses in the US [https://www.realtor.com/news/trends/states-with-most-vacant-...]. That we know about.

A desirable location will never have enough capacity. Regardless of how much building occurs. If you don’t believe me, look at NYC, Paris, etc, etc.

People move as close to a desirable location as they can afford. And often more.

Don’t get me wrong, rules set where and how bad the line is, but there is no realistic situation where everyone who wants to live in SF can, and can afford to, and it is anything like SF.

replies(2): >>45187297 #>>45187980 #
vorador ◴[] No.45187297[source]
Well the problem with SF is less density and more than half of it is single-family home neighborhoods with zero amenities.

Anti-growth people will point to neighborhoods like Glen Park, NoPa and Noe as "SF" while forgetting most of the surface area of the city is empty neighborhoods like Parkside, Mt Davidson Manor, etc.

replies(1): >>45187441 #
lazide ◴[] No.45187441[source]
It’s a matter of degree, not difference. If you fit 2x the number of people in them - you’d still have the same general problem. Just 2x the number of people now.

And because larger cities tend to also be more attractive (Tokyo is still growing, for instance), you’ll never have enough density to be ‘enough’ - aka where it’s cheap enough for everyone to live where they want.

You will have more people though.

replies(2): >>45187902 #>>45188186 #
1. crooked-v ◴[] No.45188186[source]
And yet, with the Tokyo example, the combination of lots of housing and good public transit means that you can get small but liveable apartments that are a 20-minute walk from central downtown Tokyo (and under a 10-minute walk to multiple train stations with access to the rest of the metro area) for under $1500/month. Here's one right here: https://www.realestate-tokyo.com/rent/B0021114/park-flats-gi...
replies(1): >>45189981 #
2. lazide ◴[] No.45189981[source]
The tiny salaries in Japan make that even more expensive (comparatively than SF) - last I checked. But yes, the Japanese are significantly more socially coherent eh?