patrick.net

Not if there's no building going on.

I love this article of course.

OK, the NY Times has not become totally evil. They're just having trouble accepting the new political reality of Trump.

Amazing to see that a mainstream newspaper allowed such a sensible opinion article about housing.

PS: link to underlying university research

http://realestate.wharton.upenn.edu/research/papers/full/802.pdf

rando says

OK, the NY Times has not become totally evil. They're just having trouble accepting the new political reality of Trump.

I think this article represents the beginning of a shift in mainstream thinking about housing.
There is an economic breaking point for silicon valley.
And there is a demographic transition from boomers to millennials: i.e. from people who benefit from the constant rise of prices to people who pay for them.

Those who expect increases of 6%/ year forever will be disappointed.

But while building in the San Francisco metro area is more expensive than in other places, it’s not that expensive. By the paper’s calculations, a home in the San Francisco area should cost around $281,000.

The actual price for a standard home in the area is more like $800,000 (using 2013 data). The paper argues that most of that difference is caused by regulatory hurdles like design and environmental reviews that can add years to a project’s timeline and suppress the overall housing supply. The result is overpayment on a grand scale for the few homes that do get built.

Ironman says

For $650K over here, you get a 2700 sq. ft. 4/3 house overlooking the bay.

First row seats for the rise of the oceans.