[PREV - KRUGMANS_TURF] [TOP]
UPZONE
October 15-20, 2013
There's an idea going around:
When housing prices are so high that people
are getting priced out, obviously we need E.g in a place
to "upzone", i.e. build more housing, at a like San Francisco.
higher density.
This is a notion I'm seeing floated of late--
notably at the Atlantic Cities site:
Gabriel Metcalf, "The San Francisco Exodus".
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2013/10/san-francisco-exodus/7205/
You can see the reasoning:
(a) New Urban doctrine has it that higher density is
better, so why not turn up the knob higher?
(b) simple supply-and-demand economics suggests that
when the price is high, the market should increase the supply--
and presumably it would, if it weren't artificially restricted.
There are some points I would make against these points.
First, concerning (b):
At the late date you'd think alarm bells
would go off when someone starts saying
something like "we just need to deregulate
and let the free market work!".
There were presumably reasons
for the regulations, and before
just dropping them, you should Is this The premise? "We need
consider how else the reasons more *affordable* housing,
might be satisfied. therefore we should allow lots
more housing in general, and
we'll get some affordable housing
out of the deal-- eventually."
That's a rather indirect approach to
solving a problem, and it's also a
rather theoretical one. Is it really
borne out by experience? E.g. did
building Rincon Tower improve the
situation in any measureable way?
While it sounds plausible we might
reach the desired end this way, there
are other plausible outcomes. E.g.
once the developers are unleashed,
SF may drown in Condoscitis and
Craptastic Towers until it simply
doesn't seem cool any more, and
the demand drops off to near nothing.
Once The Brand has been
depleted, the developers
will move on to mine
somewhere else.
And concerning (a):
If SF is more popular than South Bay, then why is
it that SF needs to be fixed, and not South Bay?
Some degree of urban density is no doubt desired--
many of us now realize that suburbia was a mistake-- Some further thoughts:
but why is it San Francisco's problem to get even
more dense when much of the rest of the Bay Area There may be an upper
isn't even trying? limit to the
desireable density.
ROUND_PENTAGON Just because more is
better at one point
doesn't mean more is
always better.
There may very well be
sensible limits on the
rate of change of
density. The question
may not be "how high",
but "how fast".
DRAG
--------
[NEXT - THE_HAT_SWITCH]