« prev   random   next »


To solve affordability crisis, Bay Area housing stock must grow 50 percent in 20 years

By Patrick follow Patrick   2018 May 1, 8:15pm 1,603 views   8 comments   watch   nsfw   quote   share    


A 2016 academic analysis by David Albouy, Gabriel Ehrlich and Yingyi Liu estimated that, in general, rents decrease by 3 percent for each 2 percent increase in the housing stock. ...

If our goal is to reduce the average market-rate apartment rent to 27.5 percent of median household income (the midpoint between the 25-30 percent range that is normal), that means reducing the rent from $43,200 to $24,895, a 42.4 percent reduction. Using our ratio of a 2 percent housing stock increase leading to a 3 percent decrease in rents, that means, keeping all else equal, the Bay Area would theoretically need to increase the number of housing units overnight by 28.3 percent. (Let’s round up to 30 percent to make the subsequent calculations more intuitive).

In reality, of course, housing is not built overnight. It will take many years for the Bay Area to make up its housing deficit, so we need to take into account the underlying trend growth of the U.S. population over the intervening period.

For example, if it takes 20 years to make up our housing deficit, and underlying trend growth for the U.S. population is 0.7 percent per year (15 percent over 20 years), and the average household size remains 2.3 persons, then the Bay Area will need to grow households 30 percent more than the amount of households needed to accommodate trend U.S. population growth (i.e. 30 percent more than the underlying 15 percent population growth), for a total growth of housing stock of approximately 50 percent over 20 years.
2   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2018 May 1, 10:16pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

This tells you it won't happen. The population growth is probably limited by housing now. Anything build is immediately occupied.
This means SV growth stalling: Finding employees will become very hard for startups, and VCs will look twice before transferring huge sums indirectly to landlords.
We need other cities to absorb more population growth and more tech growth.
3   mell   ignore (3)   2018 May 1, 10:22pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Problem is not just more housing. That can easily be fixed with multi-story buildings. Biggest problem is the total incompetence and corruption strangling the city under high population growth. There's already plenty of shit on the sidewalks and streets snd traffic is choked by asinine routing and Nimbyism. I don't think the city can handle anymore people without a total restructuring and kicking all hobos out.
4   justme   ignore (0)   2018 May 2, 1:09am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

>>That can easily be fixed with multi-story buildings.


>>and kicking all hobos out.

Why can't the hobos live in multi-story buildings, too? The hobos are not pooping on the street just to annoy other people, they do not have anywhere to go.
5   lostand confused   ignore (0)   2018 May 2, 5:12am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

justme says

Why can't the hobos live in multi-story buildings, too? The hobos are not pooping on the street just to annoy other people, they do not have anywhere to go

Someone making 100k a year can't afford to live there and commutes hours every day to make money, pay taxes, provide for their families and be productive members of society.
The homeless get to live right there, free housing in prime neighborhoods for what? Ship them off to agricultural areas and say work for benefits. They can live there too, pay taxes-problem solved, no illegals needed.
6   Iranian_Oil_Burse   ignore (6)   2018 May 2, 7:57am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

justme says
Why can't the hobos live in multi-story buildings

Have you seen the recent news from Brazil on this exact subject: hobos in 26-story building?
7   signalfire   ignore (0)   2018 May 2, 11:17am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Some people, especially service-employed, babyboomers and singles, are moving into tricked out vans, retired school buses and RVs to live in. There's so many of them, the cops are starting to give up harassing them. Not a bad idea, actually - even if you don't work at Google with full-on free food, gyms, restrooms and playgrounds at your disposal 24/7. I'm going to either have to do that when I retire or move to some developing country to live, because the cost of living in the US is obscene. You can get a beautiful house in Mexico for $100K and rent a 1 or 2 bedroom, if you're not fussy, for a few hundred. Pick your weather, near the ocean and hot, or in the mountains and spring-like temps year round. Utilities dirt cheap, because you don't need heating or cooling.

As far as building thousands of new housing units in any given locale goes, can these areas absorb the need for sewer connections, water, transportation access (the roads are already chock full of cars), and the other services, doctors, hospitals, police, etc) that come with that many more people?

How about the counties change the codes to allow people to live in smaller units, build smaller SFR, and thus reduce their overall cost of living? Or will it reduce your idiotic 25 million $ house evaluation if the guy next door to you manages to live in only 500 SF?
8   pkennedy   ignore (0)   2018 May 2, 2:19pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Add affordable housing, and the wages will be reduce to compensate for it 2 engineering salaries without kids are pushing up the prices for everyone else. Lots of extra income and able to displace everyone else. Increase the housing and wages will be reduced as well, and the same people will be taking up the best housing in the area...

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions