zlacker

Every time I read this sort of stuff, I ask - do you think that the demand to live in San Francisco is infinite? For a city that’s less than one-half as densely populated as Brooklyn, NY, no less? This problem was solved 150 years ago.

>>select+(OP)
Even if demand was so large as to be practically infinite, all it would mean is that San Francisco becomes the local Manhattan equivalent on the West Coast. Which in turn means big-government California progressives gets a whole lot of additional tax revenue to play with, at zero extra cost to the rest of the economy. How is that supposed to be a bad thing, exactly?

>>select+(OP)
No, I don't think that the demand to live in San Francisco ever has been or ever will be "infinite." I also don't think that's a relevant question.

>>zozbot+k1
Not necessarily.

https://www.wired.com/story/no-more-deals-san-francisco-cons...

>>dventi+K3
Of course it is. You claim that it’s impossible for San Francisco to satiate demand. That implies that it’s functionally infinite seeing as it’s currently less dense than Brooklyn or the north side of Chicago - dense places but not quite Manhattan or Manila.

>>select+Ed
> You claim that it’s impossible for San Francisco to satiate demand

No, I don't. I claim it's difficult and unlikely.

EDIT: so long as it offers an urban playground to people earning high salaries, that is

>>dventi+aj
So then there’s obviously infinite demand to live in San Francisco. It’s not difficult - we’re actively accomplishing it in other cities that have tons of wealthy people (detached single family in my neighborhood is >$2mm) and relatively affordable housing (an apartment is under $1000/bd).

>>select+Uq
Continue to say there's infinite demand if you like, but I won't be joining you.

As for "we're actively accomplishing it in other cities", I'm interested in these questions:

1. Who's "we"?

2. Which cities?

3. What exactly is being accomplished?

>>dventi+Tz
>1. Who's "we"?

Humans.

>2. Which cities?

My example is Chicago.

>3. What exactly is being accomplished?

Letting people who want to live in San Francisco live there.

If you’re not saying that San Francisco can’t build enough housing to satiate demand, what are you saying, exactly?

>>select+OL
> Humans

Can you be more specific?

> Chicago

Chicago's tech sector, while growing, is still smaller than SF's and was much smaller in the past.

> Letting people who want to live in San Francisco live there

Obviously, that's not being accomplished.

> If you’re not saying that San Francisco can’t build enough housing to satiate demand, what are you saying, exactly?

I'm saying such a program would be unlikely to succeed and would be too disruptive to satisfy me, personally (and evidently many other San Franciscans as well). I'm also saying there's another option to increasing supply to meet demand: reducing demand to meet supply.

>>select+(OP)
>do you think that the demand to live in San Francisco is infinite?

In practical terms, because of the inevitable feedback loop, yes. Building more housing creates more demand for housing.

If SF built more houses, then rent would drop and thus more businesses/jobs could be profitable at the same standard of living. The more jobs there are, the more demand for housing there is. And if people move into those new houses then the city has a larger userbase for any locally-focused businesses.

This whole loop is why cities keep growing.

In other words, meeting the demand for housing creates more demand for housing.