
San Francisco passes New York to become world’s costliest place to build - jseliger
https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/San-Francisco-passes-New-York-to-become-world-s-13760541.php
======
clay_the_ripper
As a resident of San Francisco, I would love to see more housing built here.
The fact that there are so many low rise buildings in San Francisco is
ridiculous. It’s a city for gods sake! Build the hell out of it.

Counter point 1: “the buildings will be ugly and we’ll lose our community”. I
disagree. Plenty of cities have common sense laws about how buildings should
look. Your community is changing whether you like it or not. I don’t see how
tall building erase community. They may change it, sure. But change is
inevitable.

Counter point 2: “the increase in traffic will be terrible.” So run bart 24
hours, add more stops, extend the likes and run a train every 5 minutes.
upgrade muni with all the extra tax base. Introduce congestion charges.

Counter point 3: “all the housing will go to rich people”. Maybe true, maybe
not. But by the basic law of supply and demand, more supply means prices go
down. If you build a bunch of luxury appartments, then that willl vacate some
supply of slightly less expensive housing, and a trickle effect all the way
down. Plus you can mandate controls on what types of units get built. The fact
is that rich people like to live in cities, and if you can’t afford to live
here then move.

Basically, it’s all possible but because of short sighted stupid policies and
whining about “community” it won’t happen.

~~~
aeternus
For homeowners and landlords in SF, voting for more housing is counter to
their rational self-interest. It drives down their home prices in many ways:
simple supply + demand, obstructed views, increased traffic, school
overcrowding.

Until we align incentives, why would homeowners or prospective homeowners vote
for increased housing?

~~~
clay_the_ripper
I’m curious how other cities handle this. It seems like homeowners have far
too much power in this situation, and are able to vote in their own self
interest to the detriment of everyone else.

I guess it’s a politics problem more than anything. How do we take away their
influence? Genuinely curious if anyone knows more about this and how this
might be done.

~~~
sgc
Owners actually have fewer rights than average, in the sense that it is
residents who vote, and many owners can't even vote in SF. Also, you still
only have one vote even if you own 100 units. Yes, owners lobby, but in my
opinion residents in general resist change because it will often erase
elements they want to see preserved due to the city's historical character.
There is no right or wrong in that debate since it is a personal
taste/priorities issue. And further crowding affects everyone. Very few will
vote for it, as time has shown.

~~~
blackflame7000
Basically its going to require an earthquake before land becomes available

