> for some graphs that show Europe vs anglophone countries in an obvious way
Housing is still extremely expensive in most major European cities relative to income. e.g. Milan, Lisbon, London, Rome, Munich are significantly more expensive than San Francisco or San Jose (e.g. Milan is more than 2x more expansive) if you're earning the median income.
It's not like most people in some European countries chose to live in rented cramped apartments they simple have no choice because they can't afford anything else.
> you see something like 20% more dwellings per person in developed EU countries vs
It's not clear how much of that is because of lower (or negative) population growth. e.g. Italy has one of the highest dwellings per person ratios and there are towns/villages which are basically giving away houses for free Milan is still relatively the most(?) expensive city in Europe and housing in other major cities is still less affordable than pretty much anywhere in the US.
Housing affordability is qualitatively different between Europe and the US. When a European city is expensive, it's usually only the central part that's expensive. Prices drop steeply as you get to the suburbs and satellite towns. In the US, suburbs and satellite towns are more likely to remain expensive, as long as you are within a semi-reasonable commuting distance. I guess that's because the US city is more likely expensive due to the job market and the European city due to the desirability of the city itself.
I think you are close but slightly off. EU has historically better public transit and lower sprawl allowing more price points of housing while still a "reasonable" commute.
US cities are vastly larger by land size, because America is larger allowing it, added with fewer public transit options.
Look at Houston, massive sprawl and some of the cheapest housing in the country.
The transit part is key for Tokyo, everyone talks about how housing supply is robust, zoning is loose, density is high and unit sizes are small; but few talk about how having 130 rail lines with pervasive express service means that there’s an enormous amount of land within commute distance.
Set this charting tool to Density, plug in Tokyo with a number of other major world cities, you’ll see the effect in the data.
Or you could just upzone. The nine-county Bay Area is larger in size than the Keihanshin area containing Osaka, Kyoto and Kobe and has 12 million less people.
Yeah. Bay Area denizens also would be wise to note that if they hate towers so much, part of how Japan stays low rise with higher density is by having smaller roads and more transit. So you still should be building those trains (and downsizing those roads!)
I am biased in that I live in Tokyo and am used to "a ton" meaning 150+ rail lines in this metropolis [1], constructed in a lattice that makes it hard to be very far from any train line within a large radius of the city center. What most Americans think is "a ton" is, in my view, closer to "bare minimum", but that's probably since I live in a city with an order of magnitude more transit than the most built out city in the USA.
I agree that the local land use is a total disaster, but even if they made it better, SF has a few skinny tendrils of transit which creates a few skinny corridors of transit-accessible area.
The constant excuse I kept hearing when I was living there was that there isn't enough space!! But that's only true if you won't do anything to increase the viable space to live in (and optimize the space that is present, through better land use). Even densifying the transit along these corridors, San Franciscans will still whine and complain about how there's no space, ignoring the obvious solution.
The answer to me is to do it both, yesterday. But I'm not a San Franciscan anymore and I understand that my values differ from theirs.
Aside, it's also worth mentioning that in Tokyo as well, single family homes near train stations abound. The difference is that they're smaller and denser, and mixed in with apartments. There aren't that many towers here! But the roads are mini-sized and they pack units tightly to better use land. If San Franciscans hate towers that cast shade, they have alternatives.
Prices can drop quite steeply in suburbs in US as well. It's just that when the rent is that high in most desirable areas to begin with, it's still too expensive for many after that drop.
Housing is still extremely expensive in most major European cities relative to income. e.g. Milan, Lisbon, London, Rome, Munich are significantly more expensive than San Francisco or San Jose (e.g. Milan is more than 2x more expansive) if you're earning the median income.
It's not like most people in some European countries chose to live in rented cramped apartments they simple have no choice because they can't afford anything else.
> you see something like 20% more dwellings per person in developed EU countries vs
It's not clear how much of that is because of lower (or negative) population growth. e.g. Italy has one of the highest dwellings per person ratios and there are towns/villages which are basically giving away houses for free Milan is still relatively the most(?) expensive city in Europe and housing in other major cities is still less affordable than pretty much anywhere in the US.