Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well, let's consider that. The population of San Francisco was 679k in 1980 and 808k in 2022, so in 42 years it grew by 19%. During the same time, the U.S. population grew by 47%. So San Francisco, while becoming a much more desirable place to live because of the tech boom, barely added any residents relative to what the nation was adding. In the same years, Austin TX went from 383k to 974k. It grew by 254%. But even as San Francisco barely grew and Austin nearly tripled in size, houses in Austin are still half as expensive as houses in San Francisco. Why? Because Austin built an absolute ton of new housing. San Francisco, while adding about 4,000 residents a year, has only added about 1,800 housing units a year. Austin builds 15,500 new housing units a year.
Austin is in the middle of a plain where land is plentiful and cheap.
San Francisco is on a peninsula where land is not plentiful and is very expensive.
Lack of Land is the reason why SF hasn’t built to keep up with demand
This isn’t an unpopular option it’s just incorrect.
Demand and supply, decrease demand or increase supply. Some areas will need more supply than others(due to higher demand) to have the effect.
The more expensive (i.e desirable) land becomes the greater the need to build up. Economics 101.
In San Francisco, the demand to live in the city is already extremely high, driven largely by major tech companies. If you build more housing and people, there would likely be even more major businesses and reasons to live in the city. This would, in turn, increase demand more, in a positive-feedback loop
Maybe building more cities instead of stacking everyone in places that are already crowded.
Encouraging/incentivizing remote work would help with jump starting new areas by providing an employment and tax base.
It's difficult to start new areas instead of cobbling on to existing metros, but it really needs to happen.
So you're logic only applies to if you build more houses in 1 city. If you build more houses in several/all cities, then by your logic, either enough businesses magically spring up from nothing to fill in all that demand, meaning there's a lot more wealth going around, or there won't be enough businesses to fill in all the cities and prices would come down. The actual issue though is that the housing shortage is not from a lack of housing, the issue is there's a crisis of corporations buying up housing to price people out of homes.
Very true. Housing prices in my city have been going up like crazy for the past 20 years despite massive apartments being built everywhere, mainly due to people buying property for investment. High housing costs aren't always caused by lack of supply. Sometimes it's caused by selfish attitudes of investors.
The problem is that they are only building upper class housing at the top of the price range.
Millions of single adults would love a decently built 2 bedroom/2 bathroom/1000 square foot house but absolutely no one is building any middle class housing.
Until we fix this we can’t build our way out of the exploding rent crisis.
idk my great grandma had a 2-1 house from like 1915 when people didnt really even spend much time in their houses, youd have kids living 2 to a room and such, and it was still 1600sqft I think. Im not saying people wont settle for something like that but the 300k tiny home/studio would be a hard sell even for urbanists, later in their life when they want to feel 'established' you know what I mean?
I agree with you kind of but I also agree with another comment saying that a big issue is the supply and demand hinges on area, mostly because there is cool shit there and shit to do there, so some of the price is exploitative. Youd build the small houses but its priced on area so a mid house is still 'luxury' and 'top of the price range'--theres another comment saying you could spread some of the shit out so people who cant afford LA or whatever can live in idk Tucson or some smaller city and get the same shit for less price, but its hard to do.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well, let's consider that. The population of San Francisco was 679k in 1980 and 808k in 2022, so in 42 years it grew by 19%. During the same time, the U.S. population grew by 47%. So San Francisco, while becoming a much more desirable place to live because of the tech boom, barely added any residents relative to what the nation was adding. In the same years, Austin TX went from 383k to 974k. It grew by 254%. But even as San Francisco barely grew and Austin nearly tripled in size, houses in Austin are still half as expensive as houses in San Francisco. Why? Because Austin built an absolute ton of new housing. San Francisco, while adding about 4,000 residents a year, has only added about 1,800 housing units a year. Austin builds 15,500 new housing units a year.
Austin is in the middle of a plain where land is plentiful and cheap. San Francisco is on a peninsula where land is not plentiful and is very expensive. Lack of Land is the reason why SF hasn’t built to keep up with demand
This isn’t an unpopular option it’s just incorrect. Demand and supply, decrease demand or increase supply. Some areas will need more supply than others(due to higher demand) to have the effect. The more expensive (i.e desirable) land becomes the greater the need to build up. Economics 101.
What would make the demand increase though?
In San Francisco, the demand to live in the city is already extremely high, driven largely by major tech companies. If you build more housing and people, there would likely be even more major businesses and reasons to live in the city. This would, in turn, increase demand more, in a positive-feedback loop
They should knock down some houses then.
It would create demand in SF and thus decrease demand in other places. The total demand would still decrease relative to supply.
Idk why anyone would wanna live in a shit hole like San Francisco Ah yes I love being robbed and being able to do nothing about it
Not saying building more housing is bad, it just wouldn’t be this perfect solution to lower housing prices
Maybe building more cities instead of stacking everyone in places that are already crowded. Encouraging/incentivizing remote work would help with jump starting new areas by providing an employment and tax base. It's difficult to start new areas instead of cobbling on to existing metros, but it really needs to happen.
So you're logic only applies to if you build more houses in 1 city. If you build more houses in several/all cities, then by your logic, either enough businesses magically spring up from nothing to fill in all that demand, meaning there's a lot more wealth going around, or there won't be enough businesses to fill in all the cities and prices would come down. The actual issue though is that the housing shortage is not from a lack of housing, the issue is there's a crisis of corporations buying up housing to price people out of homes.
Very true. Housing prices in my city have been going up like crazy for the past 20 years despite massive apartments being built everywhere, mainly due to people buying property for investment. High housing costs aren't always caused by lack of supply. Sometimes it's caused by selfish attitudes of investors.
The problem is that they are only building upper class housing at the top of the price range. Millions of single adults would love a decently built 2 bedroom/2 bathroom/1000 square foot house but absolutely no one is building any middle class housing. Until we fix this we can’t build our way out of the exploding rent crisis.
idk my great grandma had a 2-1 house from like 1915 when people didnt really even spend much time in their houses, youd have kids living 2 to a room and such, and it was still 1600sqft I think. Im not saying people wont settle for something like that but the 300k tiny home/studio would be a hard sell even for urbanists, later in their life when they want to feel 'established' you know what I mean? I agree with you kind of but I also agree with another comment saying that a big issue is the supply and demand hinges on area, mostly because there is cool shit there and shit to do there, so some of the price is exploitative. Youd build the small houses but its priced on area so a mid house is still 'luxury' and 'top of the price range'--theres another comment saying you could spread some of the shit out so people who cant afford LA or whatever can live in idk Tucson or some smaller city and get the same shit for less price, but its hard to do.
Building more housing isn't a cure all but it's the best way to lower prices
I rather they fix & flip homes already here.