Construction has kept rent in Chongqing, China to $75 a month(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Construction has kept rent in Chongqing, China to $75 a month
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/11/world/asia/chongqing-china-employment-ford-youth.html
265 comments
> You'd want to put them in kind of nondescript areas to avoid taking out the historic stuff as mentioned in the article
It’s amusing to suggest there is “historic stuff” in SF, as there is in China. I saw a “historic” building with a plaque in Palo Alto. It was constructed in the 1900s! Like, after my grandfather was born.
Historical preservation is stealing from the future. If I had my druthers, the opportunity cost of designating buildings or areas as historic would come directly out of the pockets of the preservationists.
It’s amusing to suggest there is “historic stuff” in SF, as there is in China. I saw a “historic” building with a plaque in Palo Alto. It was constructed in the 1900s! Like, after my grandfather was born.
Historical preservation is stealing from the future. If I had my druthers, the opportunity cost of designating buildings or areas as historic would come directly out of the pockets of the preservationists.
I dunno.
As an Northeasterner, I am amused at the poor condition of single-story commercial buildings in California, particularly Los Angeles.
You don't see many buildings of that type built before 1970, particularly in New England, because they are poorly built and the roof starts to leak at some point. In the Northeast that is reason to rebuild, in LA you can probably manage a leaky roof with a bucket for much longer.
As an Northeasterner, I am amused at the poor condition of single-story commercial buildings in California, particularly Los Angeles.
You don't see many buildings of that type built before 1970, particularly in New England, because they are poorly built and the roof starts to leak at some point. In the Northeast that is reason to rebuild, in LA you can probably manage a leaky roof with a bucket for much longer.
I love LA, was born there.. have moved in and out of the place a dozen times in my life. I don't live there now, but I visit often, and I am drawn tor return again, permanently.
I've always said that LA is beautiful at night, and pretty ugly during the day. That can be more or less true depending where in LA you're looking, but some of my favorite places in LA are absolutely hideous by the light of the day. But after dusk, same places can be magical.
Some of those old houses are built really beautifully, but there were a lot of shanty buildings that have been patched and patched. But some of the trees between those shanties are old and gorgeous. Somehow it works, but it's not a model for anything else.
I've always said that LA is beautiful at night, and pretty ugly during the day. That can be more or less true depending where in LA you're looking, but some of my favorite places in LA are absolutely hideous by the light of the day. But after dusk, same places can be magical.
Some of those old houses are built really beautifully, but there were a lot of shanty buildings that have been patched and patched. But some of the trees between those shanties are old and gorgeous. Somehow it works, but it's not a model for anything else.
Please give some examples of your favourite/magical places in LA! (As a foreigner I've gotten the impression that LA is a huge superficial city without a soul. Would like to balance that with something else.)
I've lived in LA for many years. The impression of superficiality might come from people expecting LA to be one city, when it is actually many cities with their own downtown and culture centers. Also, visitors tend to drive too much, which isolates them to touristy areas.
Some of my favorites:
1. Old Town Pasadena 2. Baldwin hill Overlook 3. Little Tokyo and Sawtelle 4. San Gabriel / Alhambra (Chinese food) 5. Signal Hill / Downtown Long Beach 6. Melrose and the area near Laurel Canyon
I could go on, but really there's gems everywhere. I've found that LA is more so a place you live than a place you visit, despite it's reputation otherwise. It's packed to to the brim with artists, developers, and good food, and there's space to stretch.
Not really hacking news, but file this under lifestyle.
Some of my favorites:
1. Old Town Pasadena 2. Baldwin hill Overlook 3. Little Tokyo and Sawtelle 4. San Gabriel / Alhambra (Chinese food) 5. Signal Hill / Downtown Long Beach 6. Melrose and the area near Laurel Canyon
I could go on, but really there's gems everywhere. I've found that LA is more so a place you live than a place you visit, despite it's reputation otherwise. It's packed to to the brim with artists, developers, and good food, and there's space to stretch.
Not really hacking news, but file this under lifestyle.
I’m moving out of LA and this post highlights why. Yep those places are great. In a typical Angelenos year they’ll see maybe one of them. None of those things are near each other. The ones that are sort of close are in reality an hour+ apart because of traffic.
I have friends scattered throughout the city and we never see each other. Even the ones who live just a few miles away don’t want to leave their neighborhoods ever because.... traffic.
My dream job is in LA. I love the idea of LA, just don’t like living here. That’s just me tho, lots of people do really love it :)
I have friends scattered throughout the city and we never see each other. Even the ones who live just a few miles away don’t want to leave their neighborhoods ever because.... traffic.
My dream job is in LA. I love the idea of LA, just don’t like living here. That’s just me tho, lots of people do really love it :)
> That’s just me tho, lots of people do really love it :)
And the rest of them are still sitting in their packed U-Hauls in traffic on the Sepulveda pass.
And the rest of them are still sitting in their packed U-Hauls in traffic on the Sepulveda pass.
Werner Herzog describes LA as “the city with the most substance anywhere on earth”. The thing with LA is that it can be anything. It’s so huge, and so diverse that you can find absolutely anything your heart desires there if you seek it out. There is the superficial glamour of Hollywood, but also the high tech cutting edge manufacturing of aerospace, endless immigrant communities from every corner of the world, every food imaginable, even family friendly enclaves of community. LA requires that you know what you are doing and what you want; it wont drop anything in your lap. But the heights of experience to be had there are like nowhere else.
Don’t forget that to experience all this wonderful stuff you have to contend with one of the worlds worst traffic problems.
I called LA home for two decades and the transportation hell largely kept me in my general community. Going to Pasadena from the Westside is a full day commitment, unless you leave at sunrise on a Sunday.
I called LA home for two decades and the transportation hell largely kept me in my general community. Going to Pasadena from the Westside is a full day commitment, unless you leave at sunrise on a Sunday.
Big mood, 3+hrs each way in traffic is hellish :c
Thanks, I don't think I can say it better.
When I lived there, it was best to live/work/play in adjacent neighborhoods, and then explore as you found yourself available the rest of the time.
I do love the global diversity aspect of it.
But I sympathize with those who didn't like it.. it's a really easy town to "miss" on.
When I lived there, it was best to live/work/play in adjacent neighborhoods, and then explore as you found yourself available the rest of the time.
I do love the global diversity aspect of it.
But I sympathize with those who didn't like it.. it's a really easy town to "miss" on.
+1. I wish i could love LA the way some do, all my experiences have been pretty gross and i have zero desire to return.
Two big factors are among the causes:
- Majority of city (outside old towns) built after WWII with an emphasis on brutalist 60s suburbia.
- Prop 13 and the NIMBY revolution that cemented it in for the long haul.
It's only in the last five years or so that extreme economic pressure has enabled new buildings over two stories (gasp) to be built outside downtown, while NIMBYs scream bloody murder.
- Majority of city (outside old towns) built after WWII with an emphasis on brutalist 60s suburbia.
- Prop 13 and the NIMBY revolution that cemented it in for the long haul.
It's only in the last five years or so that extreme economic pressure has enabled new buildings over two stories (gasp) to be built outside downtown, while NIMBYs scream bloody murder.
Proper 13 was California’s biggest mistake.
My best quote from a friend coming towards the end of the drought: "There 8 year old kids in LA that have never seen it rain"
> It’s amusing to suggest there is “historic stuff” in SF, as there is in China
It’s amusing to suggest there’s historic stuff in China, as there is in Europe. I saw a “historic” building in China. It was constructed in 1600s! Like, 400 years after the bar I used to work in started.
It’s amusing to suggest there’s historic stuff in Europe, as there is in Egypt. I saw a “historic” building in the UK. It was constructed in the 900s! Like, 4,000 years after the pyramids were built!
etc etc etc
That there’s older shit elsewhere doesn’t remove the historicity of anywhere else
It’s amusing to suggest there’s historic stuff in China, as there is in Europe. I saw a “historic” building in China. It was constructed in 1600s! Like, 400 years after the bar I used to work in started.
It’s amusing to suggest there’s historic stuff in Europe, as there is in Egypt. I saw a “historic” building in the UK. It was constructed in the 900s! Like, 4,000 years after the pyramids were built!
etc etc etc
That there’s older shit elsewhere doesn’t remove the historicity of anywhere else
Before the revolution, Chinese used to count years in eras. Very few Chinese indeed knew how old the country was, except on a level like "Yellow emperor and co." lived a horrificly long time ago.
To most, that was making the impression that "time is not actually going," and that people lived exactly like it was today for millennia. There was little regard for "historical things" outside of microscopically small class of educated elites.
To most, that was making the impression that "time is not actually going," and that people lived exactly like it was today for millennia. There was little regard for "historical things" outside of microscopically small class of educated elites.
This is a good point, because time is perceived to be not moving, nothing is actually historical.
The preservation impulse perks up with change.
The preservation impulse perks up with change.
They still do that kind of thing in Japan. Indeed, the Japanese "era" is due to switch over when the reigning emperor's abdication becomes effective in May 2019.
It's different today though. While the historically famous Edo period lasted 265 years, today the periods just end when an emperors reign ends. They are also counting years (today, not sure if they did earlier). E.g. 2018 is 平成30年 (Heisei year 30).
You're mixing up eras and reigns. The "Edo period" refers to the years when the shogunate ruled from Edo (today's Tokyo), during which there were over a dozen (notionally) reigning emperors:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Timeline_of_Japanese_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Timeline_of_Japanese_...
Thank you. Didn't know that :) I misinterpreted stuff there
It doesn't affect your daily life much any more though. Those eras used to change when super significant events happened but now they are simply tied to emperors. The same system still applies in the UK where laws are numbered by the year of the reign of the then-current monarch, but I doubt anyone outside the parliament and law profession pays any attention.
China lacks many old buildings because historically things were built from wood, not stone, and wood burns.
> Historical preservation is stealing from the future.
No, it is not. SF problem can be fixed with a few blocks. A 35 stories building with 1 bed-room condos can host up to 700-1000 persons. I'd bet lots of SF tech developers will opt for a very small high tech condo with amenities (pool, gym, library...) than the crap that is right now.
Say you build a hundred of these. That's 100K person and more than 10% of the population of San Fransisco. You plot the land 10 miles south of the downtown. You make a fast, efficient and new subway that connect from the plot to the downtown.
It is easy considering that the Chinese, Korean, and Japanese are doing it everyday. SF has the money, land and tech to do it.
No, it is not. SF problem can be fixed with a few blocks. A 35 stories building with 1 bed-room condos can host up to 700-1000 persons. I'd bet lots of SF tech developers will opt for a very small high tech condo with amenities (pool, gym, library...) than the crap that is right now.
Say you build a hundred of these. That's 100K person and more than 10% of the population of San Fransisco. You plot the land 10 miles south of the downtown. You make a fast, efficient and new subway that connect from the plot to the downtown.
It is easy considering that the Chinese, Korean, and Japanese are doing it everyday. SF has the money, land and tech to do it.
Rather than building housing way outside the city center and building expensive transit to it, upzoning around current transit would be a better use of the resources we already have.
A 35 story building's residents will make much greater use of existing mass transit when located within 3 blocks of said transit than existing low rise development will.
A 35 story building's residents will make much greater use of existing mass transit when located within 3 blocks of said transit than existing low rise development will.
Remember that it costs the US $2.5 billion per mile to build subway now in a city like SF. That’s $250,000 per person in capital costs alone to build that subway, not including the money-losing operation of it. SF has the land, money, and tech, but not the political and moral discipline to do it like the Japanese, Chinese, or Koreans.
$2.5bn/mile? Euh, sorry, I don't think it costs this much. "Get your shit together", the world will not wait. There is a reason why I go vacationing in SEA and not in Europe despite proximity.
The crazy part is partly we don't know for sure why it costs this much in the every US project [1]. A deep dive into details shows a thicket of intertwingled challenges [2] that are solvable by goring an army of oxen.
[1] https://www.marketplace.org/2019/04/11/economy/subways-US-ex...
[2] https://pedestrianobservations.com/2019/03/03/why-american-c...
[1] https://www.marketplace.org/2019/04/11/economy/subways-US-ex...
[2] https://pedestrianobservations.com/2019/03/03/why-american-c...
What's the reason?
Are blocks of 35 story buildings the best that can be done? Perhaps some of the arcology designs from historical urban design and scifi could be tried instead.
Sure. But you don't need that. You can do what people around the world have already done and there is ready tech for that.
Yes, I guess we should prefer to go with tried and tested solutions and never try anything new. Now where did I leave my abacus?
It will be interesting to see which cities do the best in future: the ones that try to house large numbers of people at low cost? The ones that are quickest to adopt new ideas? The ones where billionaires prefer to live? Who knows.
It will be interesting to see which cities do the best in future: the ones that try to house large numbers of people at low cost? The ones that are quickest to adopt new ideas? The ones where billionaires prefer to live? Who knows.
That's not what I'm saying. The best is to try new innovative ideas. But if you are in a hurry and your house is a mess, at least start with the traditional house cleaning and then move from there.
As an aside, the building with the largest floor space is also found in China, the "New Century Global Center".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJwc4fL_rpo
> A 35 stories building with 1 bed-room condos can host up to 700-1000 persons. I'd bet lots of SF tech developers will opt for a very small high tech condo with amenities (pool, gym, library...) than the crap that is right now.
Sure, but you'll induce demand. As SF prices drop, think of all the people who will move in from (mostly) the East Bay. Prices will drop, but not nearly as much as you think without 100,000 units.
Sure, but you'll induce demand. As SF prices drop, think of all the people who will move in from (mostly) the East Bay. Prices will drop, but not nearly as much as you think without 100,000 units.
Well, if prices don't drop, those 100k people will be paying something like a billion a year in rent (and/or condo mortgages,) making it probably one of the most high-return investments possible. There's not really a downside.
That drops rent in the East Bay too so I don’t see the problem. And there’s no way prices in SF don’t drop at all with that’s much construction.
[deleted]
35 stories is not even that tall for buildings in Guangzhou: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_G...
Those buildings are tall and skinny, they aren’t hosting 700-1000 people on 35 floors, I’d guess the number is more likely to be around 3 or 4 hundred, serviced by two elevators.
Tall and skinny buildings are creatures created by zoning. We can build wider and taller, but in the US most cities have zoned higher square footage buildings away with setbacks & allowances based on height and depth, forcing developers to build skinny or shrink the width of the building as it rises.
I’m talking China, not the USA. A big slab of a tall building is something that was done in the 60s but is hardly done anymore. Tall and skinny works much better in balancing residential space with a couple of elevators and a staircase.
Wide buildings lead to rooms without windows which most people don't like.
there is much more pent up demand than that, even 100k units wouldn't budge prices much.
As a rough estimate, Wikipedia says the SF area's population is roughly 8-9 million, depending on how you count. If you assume that each new unit would house 2 people, that's enough to house about 2% of the current population. (I have no idea how to estimate the effect of that on prices.)
> If I had my druthers, the opportunity cost of designating buildings or areas as historic would come directly out of the pockets of the preservationists.
The easiest way to do this would be to require consent of the current owner to designate a building as historic.
Then if you want to designate a building as historic but you don't actually want to own it, no problem, you buy the building, designate it as historic and then sell it again. The difference in value before and after comes out of your pocket.
The easiest way to do this would be to require consent of the current owner to designate a building as historic.
Then if you want to designate a building as historic but you don't actually want to own it, no problem, you buy the building, designate it as historic and then sell it again. The difference in value before and after comes out of your pocket.
Buildings are movable.
Require a bond be put up to cover the cost of moving the historic building out of the city, so the land can be used for modern construction.
Require a bond be put up to cover the cost of moving the historic building out of the city, so the land can be used for modern construction.
> Historical preservation is stealing from the future.
Historical preservation is sacrificing for the future. It's literally the exact opposite of stealing from the future
Historical preservation is sacrificing for the future. It's literally the exact opposite of stealing from the future
It's binding the hands of future generations. Once something is designated a historic, it's hard to undo, even if the opportunity cost tomorrow is much higher than it is today.
It's also cumulative. There is a finite amount of land. If you designate another 1% of it as historic each year, a hundred years later you're locked in stasis.
There is a reason for the rule against perpetuities.
It's also cumulative. There is a finite amount of land. If you designate another 1% of it as historic each year, a hundred years later you're locked in stasis.
There is a reason for the rule against perpetuities.
If you destroy something today, you have also binded the hands of a future generation who will never get to enjoy it. Most of the popular vacation places in the world are historic/old sites. If we tear down everything old to put up cheaper, more efficient buildings are we necessarily better off?
If we took things to the absolute extreme and tore it all down? Yes we would be better off. I don't think the current value of historic sites outweighs the deadweight. This is coming from a North American perspective though.
It wouldn't be the best option but the sites that have survived a hundred of years didn't survive because some legal mandate dictated it. It's because they were buildings built to last.
It wouldn't be the best option but the sites that have survived a hundred of years didn't survive because some legal mandate dictated it. It's because they were buildings built to last.
You are right that this is a very American perspective. Maybe we could learn something from societies that have been around much longer and tend to care more about their past.
==It wouldn't be the best option but the sites that have survived a hundred of years didn't survive because some legal mandate dictated it. It's because they were buildings built to last.==
Or they have historical value specifically because they were built to last. Obviously, we wouldn’t know that unless we allow them to last.
==It wouldn't be the best option but the sites that have survived a hundred of years didn't survive because some legal mandate dictated it. It's because they were buildings built to last.==
Or they have historical value specifically because they were built to last. Obviously, we wouldn’t know that unless we allow them to last.
Caring about the past is not the same as paying for the upkeep of a historic museum that costs as much as 3 museums when the historic museum was actually kind of a dump. The status quo is goddamned rediculous.
If I had to choose my position it would be less broad protection of historic buildings. However if I have to choose one extreme or the other I see homelessness exploding where I live and a bunch of money spent on bullshit. We're not talking about preserving the Sistine Chapel here.
If I had to choose my position it would be less broad protection of historic buildings. However if I have to choose one extreme or the other I see homelessness exploding where I live and a bunch of money spent on bullshit. We're not talking about preserving the Sistine Chapel here.
> Most of the popular vacation places in the world are historic/old sites.
No, they're the remains of historic/old sites that were left after people of yore tore down everything else to build anew.
You don't have to preserve 100% of the "old city" to get a glimpse into an era, just like you don't have to preserve 100% of the city wall just to show that once upon a time, city walls were a thing.
> If we tear down everything old to put up cheaper, more efficient buildings are we necessarily better off?
You don't have to tear down everything in San Francisco, but most of it has little to no "historic value".
No, they're the remains of historic/old sites that were left after people of yore tore down everything else to build anew.
You don't have to preserve 100% of the "old city" to get a glimpse into an era, just like you don't have to preserve 100% of the city wall just to show that once upon a time, city walls were a thing.
> If we tear down everything old to put up cheaper, more efficient buildings are we necessarily better off?
You don't have to tear down everything in San Francisco, but most of it has little to no "historic value".
Not everything is about San Francisco, even if HN wants to think otherwise. Plenty of other cities have historic buildings with their own value, Chicago bungalows are an example. They represent a point in time and are still viable structures for today’s families.
Places like Cinque Terra, Istanbul and Cartagena are popular specifically because they have been preserved and are not just remains.
Places like Cinque Terra, Istanbul and Cartagena are popular specifically because they have been preserved and are not just remains.
> Not everything is about San Francisco, even if HN wants to think otherwise.
Perhaps, but if we're talking about bulldozing and rebuilding the place to get rent down, San Francisco is at the top of the list.
Perhaps, but if we're talking about bulldozing and rebuilding the place to get rent down, San Francisco is at the top of the list.
Or you could build higher. For reference, San Fran has 26 skyscrapers and 900k people. Chicago has 123 skyscrapers and 2.7 million people.
> It's binding the hands of future generations.
That's true in the sense the statement is true of every human action.
> Once something is designated a historic, it's hard to undo
Only because there is widespread support for the general idea of historical preservation; it's usually not more difficult than reverding or passing a normal law to either eliminate a particular designation or an entire system of historic preservation.
People who find it difficult do so not because their hands are tied by the past, but because their hands are tied by their present opposition.
That's true in the sense the statement is true of every human action.
> Once something is designated a historic, it's hard to undo
Only because there is widespread support for the general idea of historical preservation; it's usually not more difficult than reverding or passing a normal law to either eliminate a particular designation or an entire system of historic preservation.
People who find it difficult do so not because their hands are tied by the past, but because their hands are tied by their present opposition.
Once something is designated as historic, it's exactly as easy or hard to undo as the future generations want it - you're not binding their hands; you're binding hands of this generation so that the next ones can make the choice whether to continue preserving that particular thing or not.
Once something is destroyed, though, that is impossible to undo, no matter what the future generations would want.
Once something is destroyed, though, that is impossible to undo, no matter what the future generations would want.
> Once something is designated as historic, it's exactly as easy or hard to undo as the future generations want it - you're not binding their hands; you're binding hands of this generation so that the next ones can make the choice whether to continue preserving that particular thing or not.
In exactly the same sense you're not binding current generations either.
The issue is that it's a lot easier to get something designated as historical than to get it undesignated as such or to change the process in order to make it easier.
Moreover, changing it is hard because it's a complicated issue that the large majority of people don't really care about and a concentrated special interest group (landlords who want to retain high rents) does care about and doesn't want changed.
Unless you expect that dynamic to change significantly over time, you're binding the future as much as the present.
> Once something is destroyed, though, that is impossible to undo, no matter what the future generations would want.
That is true of all action and inaction. You can't change the past once it has already happened.
You have to choose for them whether the future gets the old buildings or the new buildings. If it turns out the old buildings are worse, e.g. because continued high rents cause lasting economic damage to the region, you can't undo that either.
In exactly the same sense you're not binding current generations either.
The issue is that it's a lot easier to get something designated as historical than to get it undesignated as such or to change the process in order to make it easier.
Moreover, changing it is hard because it's a complicated issue that the large majority of people don't really care about and a concentrated special interest group (landlords who want to retain high rents) does care about and doesn't want changed.
Unless you expect that dynamic to change significantly over time, you're binding the future as much as the present.
> Once something is destroyed, though, that is impossible to undo, no matter what the future generations would want.
That is true of all action and inaction. You can't change the past once it has already happened.
You have to choose for them whether the future gets the old buildings or the new buildings. If it turns out the old buildings are worse, e.g. because continued high rents cause lasting economic damage to the region, you can't undo that either.
I tend to agree, but this assumes that the thing preserved will be valued going forward. If someone's fundament values are not such that they see any benefit in preservation of an old statehouse or whatever, this won't be a compelling argument.
>Historical preservation is stealing from the future.
There definitely needs to be more barriers when it comes to designating places and areas as historical, but this is a pretty harsh take.
There definitely needs to be more barriers when it comes to designating places and areas as historical, but this is a pretty harsh take.
I do think there is some legitimacy to the view, though. It's a bit like saying that no future people could ever do something more important or more interesting with a location than what was done by someone long in the past.
Especially in a world with a growing population and increasing centralization, there will be fewer and fewer opportunities for individuals from new generations to do new things.
Especially in a world with a growing population and increasing centralization, there will be fewer and fewer opportunities for individuals from new generations to do new things.
Though I’m not impressed by much of modern architecture... I guess it comes down to personal taste for some.
This doesn't really have anything to do with architecture. No one is arguing that newer buildings look nicer than older buildings. The new buildings won't be historical landmarks, and will probably also be bulldozed when they outlive their usefulness.
The argument is being able to look at some court house built in 1925 is not more important than people in 2018 (and forever into the future) having more affordable places to live.
I tend to agree that the "no historical preservation" viewpoint is way overblown. E.g., there are lots of monuments and buildings in Boston and Philly that should always be preserved because they are integral to telling the nation's founding story. But there are lot of "historical landmarks/buildings" in the USA that are really only significant to the handful of people who pushed to make them "historical" (and are probably now dead anyways).
The argument is being able to look at some court house built in 1925 is not more important than people in 2018 (and forever into the future) having more affordable places to live.
I tend to agree that the "no historical preservation" viewpoint is way overblown. E.g., there are lots of monuments and buildings in Boston and Philly that should always be preserved because they are integral to telling the nation's founding story. But there are lot of "historical landmarks/buildings" in the USA that are really only significant to the handful of people who pushed to make them "historical" (and are probably now dead anyways).
> The argument is being able to look at some court house built in 1925 is not more important than people in 2018 (and forever into the future) having more affordable places to live.
A compromise can be converting the court house into apartments or offices, so that it can have contemporary use but at the same time some aspects of its historic appearance are preserved (such as its façade). Of course, other parts of its historical value are going to be lost – it is likely impossible to maintain the historical integrity of the actual court rooms in the process of converting the building into offices or apartments – but it is still better than knocking down the building entirely.
I used to live around the corner from an old water pump house converted to offices. When they switched from coal-fired pumps to electrical ones, suddenly the amount of space consumed by the pumps shrunk dramatically. So they removed all the boilers and turned it into office space instead. Part of me wishes the boilers had stayed, but it is better than knocking down the building entirely.
A compromise can be converting the court house into apartments or offices, so that it can have contemporary use but at the same time some aspects of its historic appearance are preserved (such as its façade). Of course, other parts of its historical value are going to be lost – it is likely impossible to maintain the historical integrity of the actual court rooms in the process of converting the building into offices or apartments – but it is still better than knocking down the building entirely.
I used to live around the corner from an old water pump house converted to offices. When they switched from coal-fired pumps to electrical ones, suddenly the amount of space consumed by the pumps shrunk dramatically. So they removed all the boilers and turned it into office space instead. Part of me wishes the boilers had stayed, but it is better than knocking down the building entirely.
Sure. The answer will be different for different buildings. See the grading system in https://www.citylab.com/perspective/2019/02/tax-credit-histo...
Australia as a country was founded in 1901, so there's plenty of historic stuff from that era over here (it was only settled by europeans 113 years before that, so there's a very small window for historic buildings)
Similar story here in Finland. Officially the country is 100 years old, but of course people have been living here for much longer than that. Sadly there is little evidence of them though, because they built their houses from wood.
By contrast the city I grew up in, York, had stone walls that are ~2000 years old. The next city I lived, Edinburgh, has some proper-old buildings too. e.g. The Royal mile contains buildings from the 12th century, and I regularly used to drink in pubs that were 600-800 years old.
In short "old" is relative.
By contrast the city I grew up in, York, had stone walls that are ~2000 years old. The next city I lived, Edinburgh, has some proper-old buildings too. e.g. The Royal mile contains buildings from the 12th century, and I regularly used to drink in pubs that were 600-800 years old.
In short "old" is relative.
My favorite historical thing in York was seeing the Roman foundations under the cathedral (York Minster). You can see a similar thing next to the cathedral in Leon, Spain (whose name came from "legio" for Legion, since it was originally a Roman army camp, rather than "Leon" meaning "lion" as it's called now.)
I think you are adding to their point. To people from Europe or Asia that's just not even a historic timescale.
I'm saying that just because something isn't that old relatively, doesn't mean it doesn't have historical value. There's definitely some historic buildings in australia, especially from colonial time.
On the other hand, once it's not preserved the future never gets to see it. So you could say that the cultural cost of removing the past should come out of the pockets of the developers.
Which in turn gets passed on to the tenants who have to pay a bunch of money because gamgam insisted that it would culture future generations to be able to look at an old courthouse.
If everybody just left a historic building alone it would just decay into disrepair. If somebody is not using the location it has no value. The people going around designating every building that stays standing beyond a certain number of years historic causing said land to go underutilized need to pay some of the cost. The status quo is overbroad.
If everybody just left a historic building alone it would just decay into disrepair. If somebody is not using the location it has no value. The people going around designating every building that stays standing beyond a certain number of years historic causing said land to go underutilized need to pay some of the cost. The status quo is overbroad.
Historic value is what out of the multitude of current things that people in the future find worth keeping.
The only way to tax "historic value" would be to put a sliding scale tax on things in proportion to their subjective quality and incentivize garbage that nobody thinks anyone will want 20 years from now.
The only way to tax "historic value" would be to put a sliding scale tax on things in proportion to their subjective quality and incentivize garbage that nobody thinks anyone will want 20 years from now.
[deleted]
There are some things that should genuinely be historically preserved.
But overwhelmingly it is a pretext for NIMBYism as part of the overall strategy for always having an excuse to not build anything anywhere.
But overwhelmingly it is a pretext for NIMBYism as part of the overall strategy for always having an excuse to not build anything anywhere.
Yeah let’s destroy all the cute neighborhoods which makes San Francisco one of the only beautiful cities in the US, and forget about prop 13.
Nothing says cute like endless streets defined completely by garage doors at the ground level.
LOL! There's nothing more beautiful than a homeless guy taking a dump in the middle of the side walk.
I don't find SF that beautiful, everything around it on the other hand is amazing (Golden Gate bridge, Golden Gate park, the Presidio and further away like the Marin Headlands/Sausalito etc..)
There are many, many beautiful cities and towns in the US. San Francisco is not one of them, if you mean the actual city.
San Francisco is a very ugly city.
Sounds like someone hasn't been to San Francisco 2, aka Portland, OR.
Bostons a cute little city and i quite love the beauty of little mountain hamlets in colorado, thank you very much
> There's really no reason why London/SF couldn't do that apart from government policy. I live in London and like it but wonder if having all the property being some silly multiple of wages is the best way to do things.
But Guangzhou has a much higher property price to income ratio than either London or SF. So, the policy you suggest doesn't fix the problem you raise.
https://www.numbeo.com/property-investment/in/Guangzhou
https://www.numbeo.com/property-investment/in/San-Francisco
https://www.numbeo.com/property-investment/in/London
But Guangzhou has a much higher property price to income ratio than either London or SF. So, the policy you suggest doesn't fix the problem you raise.
https://www.numbeo.com/property-investment/in/Guangzhou
https://www.numbeo.com/property-investment/in/San-Francisco
https://www.numbeo.com/property-investment/in/London
But the higher prices in Guangzhou could be due to a much higher "maximal use" value from allowing denser development. If the property is 2x as expensive but holds 6x as many units (30 story tower in article vs typical 5 story American midrise), then that's a win. That type of cookie cutter high rise is very common in many Chinese cities. They will plop down several of these towers in the same area, typically 10+ stories, with few burdensome restrictions on parking and elevators. Can't speak to London, but I was blown away when visiting SF just how little dense development there was in most of the city, and how little new construction there was even of midrise buildings.
I believe it is per unit price not the whole building. It would be like family with 30 grand/year going for million dollar home. In China's case if would be an apartment accommodating 3-4 whereas in US it would be a large home in 99% of areas which are at max 20 miles from a city.
I lived in city of Mumbai, India where median income is about $3K per annum and median apartment price is would be about $200K.
I lived in city of Mumbai, India where median income is about $3K per annum and median apartment price is would be about $200K.
There's really no reason why London/SF couldn't do that apart from government policy.
Well, that "government policy" is the will of the taxpayers and voters who want to decide what happens to the city they live in and not just accept that living conditions imposed upon them by some bureaucrat. People in Guangzhou may be accustomed to living in Sim City, but that's not how it works in a democracy.
Personally, I've been to all three cities, and I wouldn't want to live in Guangzhou, compared to London or San Francisco.
People aren't robots to be warehoused.
Well, that "government policy" is the will of the taxpayers and voters who want to decide what happens to the city they live in and not just accept that living conditions imposed upon them by some bureaucrat. People in Guangzhou may be accustomed to living in Sim City, but that's not how it works in a democracy.
Personally, I've been to all three cities, and I wouldn't want to live in Guangzhou, compared to London or San Francisco.
People aren't robots to be warehoused.
You frame nimbyism and protectionist housing policies as the will of the people, but I'd take a Chinese city with clean air over 3400 / month in a second. SF housing is broken, I would not put it on a pedestal of being some grand embodyment of democracy.
The only Chinese city with clean air is Xiamen. It is a nice place, but you might have trouble getting the right job.
>The only Chinese city with clean air is Xiamen.
I was about to disagree but I just looked it up and it seems to be doing a lot better than I remembered.
http://pm25.in/xiamen
I was about to disagree but I just looked it up and it seems to be doing a lot better than I remembered.
http://pm25.in/xiamen
Xiamen has geographical benefits, lots of wind blowing any pollution out into the ocean. Not to mention that they have a lot of nice colonial architecture as well.
I'd take a Chinese city with clean air over 3400 / month in a second.
So go ahead. No one is stopping you.
SF housing is broken
I don't disagree, and that's also the case in most large cities these days.
I would not put it on a pedestal of being some grand embodyment of democracy.
I don't think it's grand, but I think there's more value to it than current generations understand.
So go ahead. No one is stopping you.
SF housing is broken
I don't disagree, and that's also the case in most large cities these days.
I would not put it on a pedestal of being some grand embodyment of democracy.
I don't think it's grand, but I think there's more value to it than current generations understand.
> that's also the case in most large cities these days.
Chicago, as always, begs to differ. But no one notices it, it always flies under the radar which probably contributes to it's success in this regard.
Chicago, as always, begs to differ. But no one notices it, it always flies under the radar which probably contributes to it's success in this regard.
Chicago, and more importantly IL at large, is broken. The state gov is one of the most corrupt in the country. 4 out of the last 6 or 7 governors have went to jail. Dennis Hastert comes out of the IL political machinery. State employees pension funds will likely bankrupt the state as the taxbase shrinks. The job prospects for most engineers are limited. I grew up there and wouldn't move back.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-ed...
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-ed...
I've only visited Chicago once and really enjoyed it, but I suspect its reputation, whether vaild or not, for crime, cold, and corruption serves as a rate limiter on migration to the city.
Chicago has a nice balance between QoL and CoL; I don't see the huge appeal of moving to the bay when most of it is just overgrown suburb and living costs are out of control
I moved to SF from Chicago and agree that the value for money is nuts there (I loved Chicago), but the extended winter, isolated nature, and the fact that it isn't really destination city for any industry puts pretty hard limits on how much people will pay.
> So go ahead. No one is stopping you.
There's some sort of open border policy between the US and China?
Seems like a lot of effort simply to live somewhere with reasonable housing policies.
There's some sort of open border policy between the US and China?
Seems like a lot of effort simply to live somewhere with reasonable housing policies.
That's absurd, there are plenty of large cities doing relatively ok keeping housing costs in line. Try visiting San Antonio, Dallas, or Houston, 3 of the 10 largest cities in the US that are quite affordable.
People aren't robots to be warehoused.
Heh, that's how I would describe much of the SF market in comparison to the (better designed subset of) suburbs. An apartment in SF that is anything more than a place to park one's sleeping corpse is quite expensive.
Heh, that's how I would describe much of the SF market in comparison to the (better designed subset of) suburbs. An apartment in SF that is anything more than a place to park one's sleeping corpse is quite expensive.
I'd massively prefer to live on the 25th floor of block apartments with public transit access for $100 a month than to have no such option and be forced to toil a quarter of my adult life to have way more space than I want or need.
But what if, compared to London or San Francisco, places like Guangzhou are the only places normal people can afford to live in?
[deleted]
> You'd want to put them in kind of nondescript areas to avoid taking out the historic stuff as mentioned in the article and maybe pay out 50% above market to existing buildings in the way so they are not too pissed off but it could be doable.
Already exists, see e.g. Croydon. Yes, not in Zone 1, but 14 minutes to London Bridge by Thameslink, about the same time it took me to go from South Kensington to Westminster/St James in the early 2000s and probably without having to wait out a couple trains at rush hour due to lack of space within.
Already exists, see e.g. Croydon. Yes, not in Zone 1, but 14 minutes to London Bridge by Thameslink, about the same time it took me to go from South Kensington to Westminster/St James in the early 2000s and probably without having to wait out a couple trains at rush hour due to lack of space within.
> You'd want to put them in kind of nondescript areas to avoid taking out the historic stuff as mentioned in the article and maybe pay out 50% above market to existing buildings in the way so they are not too pissed off but it could be doable.
And, presumably, they'd be as cheap as possible, leading to higher probability of hazards like at Grenfell Tower?
And, presumably, they'd be as cheap as possible, leading to higher probability of hazards like at Grenfell Tower?
Read the backstory. Isocyanate foam maker lobbied cheaper rockwool makers out of the country in UK, with all blessings from the "elites"
24 floors (like Grenfell) will not happen again in London - at least in our lifetimes, foam or no foam, bad redesign or no redesign or one staircase or two. High residential is gone. On the other hand 8 to 12 floors is pretty dense and requires less surrounding space and infrastructure so works out quite well.
What's needed in London is a change in the development law that mandates 3 good sized bedrooms, two baths and one large living / cooking area. This would provide liveable accommodation for families and would chop out the drivers for a house at any cost.
What's needed in London is a change in the development law that mandates 3 good sized bedrooms, two baths and one large living / cooking area. This would provide liveable accommodation for families and would chop out the drivers for a house at any cost.
No a law is needed that prevent foreign individuals or other entities owning lots of property for the sole purpose of renting it out. Half of London is currently owned by them. And the normale working class is barely capable of paying the rent
I agree about that law, Private Eye [1] has done a great job in making the facts about property ownership in the UK more transparent, I find it particularly abhorrent that property is being used for money laundering and tax evasion draining money away from some of the most needy in the world and then as a secondary effect making life difficult for average people in London and SE England.
Actually buying to rent, while bad, isn't the biggest issue. Buying to speculate and drive up prices to flip for a cheap buck while driving others with less capital into penury is. The only good thing that Osbourne got through was the new taxes on property transactions, I think we need more - especially a tax on transactions done in quick succession. If there was a premium on a property being sold (say 5% of the transaction price) less than 24mths after it had previously been sold I think that would kill speculation stone dead.
[1] http://www.private-eye.co.uk/registry
Actually buying to rent, while bad, isn't the biggest issue. Buying to speculate and drive up prices to flip for a cheap buck while driving others with less capital into penury is. The only good thing that Osbourne got through was the new taxes on property transactions, I think we need more - especially a tax on transactions done in quick succession. If there was a premium on a property being sold (say 5% of the transaction price) less than 24mths after it had previously been sold I think that would kill speculation stone dead.
[1] http://www.private-eye.co.uk/registry
So they'll need to create a bunch of shell companies?
In the era of graph databases that doesn't work so well as it used to if transparency laws are set properly.
I was thinking more medium quality. A lot of London stuff seems to either be bad council construction or £1m+ extra lux.
The council spent quite a lot of money on Grenfell tower, I seem to remember it worked out at £66K per flat.
Moscow did a very similar thing in 1990s and 2000s, allowing to build huge swathes of 25-32 story buildings. It allowed for quite accessible mortgages, with the cost of the buildings being moderate.
It did allow for significant growth. It also put a lot of strain on public transportation.
It did allow for significant growth. It also put a lot of strain on public transportation.
It isn't a simple matter of "paying people" to get them out of their homes. You have to force them out via eminent domain. And not only that, rewrite your laws to extend the powers of eminent domain well beyond their current scope -- which in most jurisdictions almost certainly do not cover the scale of forced redevelopment and mass evictions you are imagining.
You'd want to put them in kind of nondescript areas
These neighborhoods aren't "nondescript" to people who have been living there for generations. And your apparent obliviousness to this central fact goes to the heart of the matter of why redevelopment politics are so contentious in many cities.
You'd want to put them in kind of nondescript areas
These neighborhoods aren't "nondescript" to people who have been living there for generations. And your apparent obliviousness to this central fact goes to the heart of the matter of why redevelopment politics are so contentious in many cities.
> It isn't a simple matter of "paying people" to get them out of their homes. You have to force them out via eminent domain.
Nonsense.
If zoning was changed so large housing buildings became legal, existing home owners in prime locations could become very rich selling to skyscraper developers. Or even build tall buildings of their own.
All experience indicates that people with a chance to become very rich will take that chance.
Nonsense.
If zoning was changed so large housing buildings became legal, existing home owners in prime locations could become very rich selling to skyscraper developers. Or even build tall buildings of their own.
All experience indicates that people with a chance to become very rich will take that chance.
Nonsense.
You can say it's "nonsense" if you want.
But the simple fact is, this idea you apparently have -- that a developer can deterministically "buy people" out of their property (or rental status), even assuming that that it had adequate capital on hand -- is just not how this stuff works.
You can say it's "nonsense" if you want.
But the simple fact is, this idea you apparently have -- that a developer can deterministically "buy people" out of their property (or rental status), even assuming that that it had adequate capital on hand -- is just not how this stuff works.
I think it's everyone around who complains when the new skyscraper blocks their ocean view they paid $200k for in extra home equity.
To make these liveable, you have to have very strong central planning. Many former/currently communist cities look like this with varying height.
In Moscow for example, new apartments tend to be 25-40 stories high. However, they have large offsets from the street, are not built “shoulder to shoulder” with neighbors and generally developments from inner courtyards that are big enough to have parking and a soccer field.
There’s also a phenomenon of what locals call “pinpoint development”, where some unscrupulous developer will try to stick a tower in these courtyards and ruin the setup for everyone.
Contrast that with SF or NYC - you hardly have open plots of lands and everything is one giant wall of buildings.
In Moscow for example, new apartments tend to be 25-40 stories high. However, they have large offsets from the street, are not built “shoulder to shoulder” with neighbors and generally developments from inner courtyards that are big enough to have parking and a soccer field.
There’s also a phenomenon of what locals call “pinpoint development”, where some unscrupulous developer will try to stick a tower in these courtyards and ruin the setup for everyone.
Contrast that with SF or NYC - you hardly have open plots of lands and everything is one giant wall of buildings.
NYC does this through zoning regulations. Older buildings were typically designed with setbacks [1]. After zoning code changes in the 1960s most buildings became tall boxes attached to open plazas or low rise buildings instead.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1916_Zoning_Resolution
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1916_Zoning_Resolution
NYC doesn’t really accomplish this. Take a look at Google maps satellite view and you’ll see a huge difference.
Of course, if you had to deal with the incredibly poor quality of this housing for much time, you'd probably change your mind.
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. The construction quality in mainland China is terrible.
I've witnessed a lot of it, myself, but this video was posted on HN a couple of days ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XopSDJq6w8E
As bad as that is, it only scratches the surface because they didn't actually go inside any of the buildings. It would be unimaginable for a building outside of the Chinese bubble to literally start collapsing upon itself after standing on its own for only three years.
I've witnessed a lot of it, myself, but this video was posted on HN a couple of days ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XopSDJq6w8E
As bad as that is, it only scratches the surface because they didn't actually go inside any of the buildings. It would be unimaginable for a building outside of the Chinese bubble to literally start collapsing upon itself after standing on its own for only three years.
The quality of housing many people can afford in London can be pretty terrible too, in its own way
The typical quality of newly constructed housing in these regions of mainland China is illegal in London, and increasingly alien to even the most wretched Londoner.
It was international news when there was a serious fire in a tower recently in London, it's not news at all in some places.
It was international news when there was a serious fire in a tower recently in London, it's not news at all in some places.
Yes, of course safety is not comparable and is paramount in importance. However just in terms of the day-to-day experience of living in these places - I'm not so sure London has an obvious advantage.
How many of your politicians national and local own multiple residential properties?
If England is like New Zealand guess it’s close to 100%
If England is like New Zealand guess it’s close to 100%
Soviet bloc housing; no thanks. That is the end result of government policy.
The difference is that nobody would be forcing you to live in one.
Note that sprawling suburbs with identical single family houses and lawns controlled to the inch by HOAs are also the end result of government policy.
Note that sprawling suburbs with identical single family houses and lawns controlled to the inch by HOAs are also the end result of government policy.
HOA's are, quite literally, not government. They're an association of home owners.
They sometimes act like government, but are still very limited in scope and power. And a good HOA or condo association (there are some) is even better than a government.
They sometimes act like government, but are still very limited in scope and power. And a good HOA or condo association (there are some) is even better than a government.
They are not The Government, but they govern various areas relating to the homes and lifes of the people living under them. Since they govern, they are a government. Being limited in scope and power is irrelevant, unless you try to also claim US states don't have a government.
Not entirely related but illustrating the point: an HOA is surprisingly similar to a local government: they approve or deny building requests, compel property owners to pay a share of common expenses (in other contexts called taxes), issue fines for violating "laws", hold elections, etc.
Not entirely related but illustrating the point: an HOA is surprisingly similar to a local government: they approve or deny building requests, compel property owners to pay a share of common expenses (in other contexts called taxes), issue fines for violating "laws", hold elections, etc.
Of course they are government. If you don't pay their fee, they can evict you. They are the only agency able to do this, despite having no lien on the house. That makes them a government, whether you like it or not
If you don't pay their fee, they can evict you.
And that's why I wrote that they act like a government. But unlike a government, you can move away from the HOA's project and not be under its thumb. To escape government, you have to buy a ship and anchor it in the middle of the ocean.
And that's why I wrote that they act like a government. But unlike a government, you can move away from the HOA's project and not be under its thumb. To escape government, you have to buy a ship and anchor it in the middle of the ocean.
So the government of California is not a government because you can move to Nevada? Have you thought about what you're claiming? Is the government of London not a government because you can move to Birmingham?
No need to take it so literally. Moving to the next development or town over is different from moving out of a country or state.
So yes... City governments are not governments because you can just move to the neighboring city. Redefining words is fun!!
[deleted]
Governments are associations of citizens --- well, at least the ones that aren't despotic. HOAs are, well, private governments. That might seem like a contradiction in terms, but it really isn't.
What makes one of them private and the other one isn't? Aren't all governments just the way we organize ourselves in groups and give power to the group?
I said they were the end result of government policy. I said nothing about them being government.
[deleted]
I have spent some time living in one of these tall thin Chinese towers. They have benefits that are not at apparent at first glance. Since they are thin every room can have a window and they have good airflow. Since they are high density public transport can be very close, and catching a taxi is easy.
Also, if someone 15 floors below or above you is using a jackhammer, your day is screwed. Or, if there's a child who is bouncing a ball against the wall in some appartment. The noises travel pretty well across the structure, that's why I prefer to live in a building which has as few units within a single structure as possible. Mine curently has 25, which is livable, previous one was over a hundred and was much worse in this regard.
> That is the end result of government policy.
Everything is the result of government policy. Even if the government did absolutely nothing, it would be the result of a government policy not to intervene.
Everything is the result of government policy. Even if the government did absolutely nothing, it would be the result of a government policy not to intervene.
Having seem them in person in China, they very much resembled bloc houses. 3x3 pr 4x4 squares of identical apartment buildings, and it seemed like there were miles and miles of these
This is very classist. Everybody should have the opportunity of living in a big city, especially given that that's where the jobs are (and it's only going to get worse every year).
Well, London and SF are historic and beautiful cities (at least architecturally). Part of the reason people WANT to live there is because they aren't full of skyscrapers and megacorporations.
In fact, one of the defining traits of San Francisco is that it disallows chain restaurants, walmarts, etc. It also has many parks. When I see a stone church that has stood for 200 years in a city, I think it's priceless.
If you don't, well there's plenty of cities that don't give a crap about aesthetics at all, and so they're cheap, and so they're full of poor people, and so they're full of crime.
In fact, one of the defining traits of San Francisco is that it disallows chain restaurants, walmarts, etc. It also has many parks. When I see a stone church that has stood for 200 years in a city, I think it's priceless.
If you don't, well there's plenty of cities that don't give a crap about aesthetics at all, and so they're cheap, and so they're full of poor people, and so they're full of crime.
> Part of the reason people WANT to live there is because they aren't full of skyscrapers and megacorporations.
> When I see a stone church that has stood for 200 years in a city, I think it's priceless.
I think that actually there are megacorporations in SF (or within commuting distance in the Valley), and they are the reasons people want to live here. I see no less than 6 historic churches out of my window in a historic city in Poland, and yet rent is $300 a month and no one wants to move here. Why? No megacorporations.
I think that actually there are megacorporations in SF (or within commuting distance in the Valley), and they are the reasons people want to live here. I see no less than 6 historic churches out of my window in a historic city in Poland, and yet rent is $300 a month and no one wants to move here. Why? No megacorporations.
Your argument is that affordable market rate housing allows poor people to live in a city, which you don’t want?
I think we’ve found the world’s most honest NIMBYist!
I think we’ve found the world’s most honest NIMBYist!
> one of the defining traits of San Francisco is that it disallows chain restaurants, walmarts, etc.
For very narrow values of "chain restaurants, walmarts etc." Target is basically the same thing as Wal-mart. Chain restaurants are common. (For example, I used to eat lunch at a nearby Jimmy John's, a sandwich chain from Illinois. Which Jimmy John's I ate at might vary; there was more than one nearby.) There's a Starbucks on every block.
For very narrow values of "chain restaurants, walmarts etc." Target is basically the same thing as Wal-mart. Chain restaurants are common. (For example, I used to eat lunch at a nearby Jimmy John's, a sandwich chain from Illinois. Which Jimmy John's I ate at might vary; there was more than one nearby.) There's a Starbucks on every block.
Yeah, I always assumed that ban just means the chain has to bribe the right officials.
Megacorporations are actually the reason SF has become the real estate nightmare that it is -- but hey, no poor people.
When a city makes decisions that don't favor its residents, it becomes an unaffordable haven for transplants, speculators and people who value the facade of the 200 year old stone church as opposed to the poor people the church was created to serve/bilk.
When a city makes decisions that don't favor its residents, it becomes an unaffordable haven for transplants, speculators and people who value the facade of the 200 year old stone church as opposed to the poor people the church was created to serve/bilk.
It's not the corporations, but the current mortgage system. Corp workers with 100-200k pay pair up and put their entire life earnings (30 years) towards a house. Banks back this deal and the couple gets a house they can't really afford. Same with our education system and healthcare. If the gov made a law that mortgage can't exceed 1 year income, prices would adjust to that number.
If SF really gave a crap about aesthetics, they would tax residents like you in order to clean up its streets and build affordable housing (hello skyscrapers) for the homeless people who are ruining the aesthetics of such a 'beautiful' city. Good luck bringing your kids to one of the 'many parks' in the city to play without being worried about getting pricked with a used needle hidden in the grass, or walk to that beautiful 200year old stone church without getting harassed by the homeless.
SF is overrated. The reason you would pay $3000 for a tiny studio is because commuting into the city to work for one of the megacorporations is untenable. There are much nicer places to live in the Peninsula and South Bay, or even in other states.
SF is overrated. The reason you would pay $3000 for a tiny studio is because commuting into the city to work for one of the megacorporations is untenable. There are much nicer places to live in the Peninsula and South Bay, or even in other states.
Presumably you need some people to be poor in every metropolitan area, because six figure software developers are not going to scrub the office floors after hours or serve brunch. Without poor people basic services start falling apart, and they have to live somewhere.
You must be kidding if you’re suggesting SF isn’t full of crime and poor people. It’s a city known for being full of bussed-in homeless lining the streets, covered in shit and used needles, where you can expect to have your car broken into on a regular basis.
This speaks to a much larger problem. As opportunity concentrates in dense areas, the lucky few elite will try their hardest to keep it all to themselves, one way being by hoarding it in an artificially-low population city like SF. Eventually they’ll start building a wall to keep the undesirables out, or have police harass everyone who isn’t driving a luxury vehicle like in Marin.
This speaks to a much larger problem. As opportunity concentrates in dense areas, the lucky few elite will try their hardest to keep it all to themselves, one way being by hoarding it in an artificially-low population city like SF. Eventually they’ll start building a wall to keep the undesirables out, or have police harass everyone who isn’t driving a luxury vehicle like in Marin.
> Well, London and SF are historic and beautiful cities (at least architecturally)
One is not like the other.
Seriously. You can't compare any American city with a European counterpart from a "historic" perspective.
One is not like the other.
Seriously. You can't compare any American city with a European counterpart from a "historic" perspective.
[deleted]
Boston was founded in 1632. Mexico City is even older if you want to pull in Latin America.
There is plenty of history in North America.
There is plenty of history in North America.
[deleted]
Wouldn't it be much more efficient to require a minimum income/wealth of would be residents and so lower the demand for housing enough that all these rich people can invest into something more productive than real estate?
Yes; laws like that can get into trouble with US laws against segregated neighborhoods.
And SF isn't?
> When I see a stone church that has stood for 200 years in a city, I think it's priceless.
Meh. When I see it, I see a monumental squandering of human labor.
Meh. When I see it, I see a monumental squandering of human labor.
So much of the arguments over housing contain some sort of slippery slope statement of "I don't want my city to become Hong Kong or Dubai." But imagine if SF/SV started building housing that looked a lot like Amsterdam https://www.jetsetter.com/uploads/sites/7/2018/04/lVBcs3gf-1..., Paris https://c8.alamy.com/comp/RR1A0X/elegant-parisian-apartment-..., or even New York https://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/05/11/realestate/201405.... Those 5-10 story town houses are far nicer than anything that exists in SF and would provide a huge boost in density. Sure, it would be hugely expensive to recreate something that nice today, but the point is that you can create a beautiful, dense city without going really tall.
try to build in San Francisco, just try. The latest attempt was shot down because it would have shadow encroach eighteen percent of a city park, not even where kids congregate as its a two acre park next to a school [1]. This was after getting past every previous hurdle. As in, when anyone can block a private project nothing gets done. Oh you can try to put one up but you have to buy everyone off or so handicap your project it cannot be affordably built. Another horror story is the ever ongoing saga to build apartments by a laundromat owner [2]
America's housing project is simply because of government and the courts. Politicians through special interest groups which funnel money to their campaign and friends; namely highly paid positions with little more than a part time job, to courts which treat every opposing idea as having merit.
[1] https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/SF-supervisors-...
[2] https://reason.com/2019/03/19/the-most-contested-apartment-b
America's housing project is simply because of government and the courts. Politicians through special interest groups which funnel money to their campaign and friends; namely highly paid positions with little more than a part time job, to courts which treat every opposing idea as having merit.
[1] https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/SF-supervisors-...
[2] https://reason.com/2019/03/19/the-most-contested-apartment-b
I completely agree that those areas should allow more 5-10 story buildings, but let's not kid ourselves about what they would look like. They would be One-Plus-Fives [1].
1. http://archplanbaltimore.blogspot.com/2015/03/how-one-plus-f...
1. http://archplanbaltimore.blogspot.com/2015/03/how-one-plus-f...
This is a question to which I haven't found a satisfying answer yet: why do old houses look better than new ones?
There are answers like "only good looking houses got preserved" or "it's just perception, in a hundred years people will love the houses being build now as much as the houses which were build in the nineteenth century". I don't really buy such arguments. I had some musings about people no longer caring about living in a beautiful house because with fast transportation there is less incentive to make a good impression on your neighbors. Or maybe it's something about craftsmen making less design decisions because of more planing and prefabrication. But these too are just speculations.
There are answers like "only good looking houses got preserved" or "it's just perception, in a hundred years people will love the houses being build now as much as the houses which were build in the nineteenth century". I don't really buy such arguments. I had some musings about people no longer caring about living in a beautiful house because with fast transportation there is less incentive to make a good impression on your neighbors. Or maybe it's something about craftsmen making less design decisions because of more planing and prefabrication. But these too are just speculations.
Are you just musing to yourself? That is, is your question "Why do old houses look better [to me] than new ones?" or are you polling the public?
If you're polling the public, taste is a real thing too, modern architects have a different aesthetic. Same shows up in clothing: a simple waterproof polyester jacket from uniqlo vs a hand-sewn trench coat with a million features like epaulets, grenade rings, gunflaps, etc.
If you're polling the public, taste is a real thing too, modern architects have a different aesthetic. Same shows up in clothing: a simple waterproof polyester jacket from uniqlo vs a hand-sewn trench coat with a million features like epaulets, grenade rings, gunflaps, etc.
Nice, I lived in a 1+5, I didn't know they had a name.
TBH the quality was good enough. Sound could be quieter but was fine. The biggest problem was sprinkler system, at least once a year there would be a leak or a trigger that would completely destroy 1-3 apts. I dream of concrete now.
TBH the quality was good enough. Sound could be quieter but was fine. The biggest problem was sprinkler system, at least once a year there would be a leak or a trigger that would completely destroy 1-3 apts. I dream of concrete now.
I don't see the problem. Could quibble about styling, but that is an order of magnitude nicer than the surface parking lots or 60s shitbox apartments that currently dominate Los Angeles.
True but those three cities aren't any cheaper than SF, esp given local salaries.
Wait so you’re telling me that increasing real estate supply can help control rent inflation!? SF take note
Funny that a communist country is demonstrating supply and demand curves.
In China the people definitely do not control the means of production. The party controls that.
I live in downtown Shanghai, my apartment is next to a block of land waiting for development. The land was auctioned more than 10 years ago to a private foreign developer, they just left the land there doing nothing waiting for the land value to go up. Such land hoarding is again the law and they finally managed to get media attention this week. Anyone following local news here in Shanghai should be able to tell the location I am talking about.
You are partially right here, people do not control the means of production, way too many greedy foreign companies do. That Mr. Huang mentioned in the article is another good example, why should he be paid only $1,000 USD when the same Ford car he built is being sold way more expensive in China than in the US?
You are partially right here, people do not control the means of production, way too many greedy foreign companies do. That Mr. Huang mentioned in the article is another good example, why should he be paid only $1,000 USD when the same Ford car he built is being sold way more expensive in China than in the US?
When I did a short term contract in SH in 2016, I lived near an "ultraluxury" highrise that was five years old. At 21:00, I was only able to count like 15 flats having lights on.
Why are you putting so much blame on foreign companies? Any statistics on WFOE in China to back that up?
>why should he be paid only $1,000 USD when the same Ford car he built is being sold way more expensive in China than in the US?
Because otherwise he'd be paid $0 since it'd be cheaper to manufacture the car somewhere other than China. Also, Chinese politicians are perfectly free to require such things so it's odd that you're blaming western companies which only have power in China because politicians let them have power. Of course, massive unemployment rates tend to cause more issues so it's clear why they don't.
Because otherwise he'd be paid $0 since it'd be cheaper to manufacture the car somewhere other than China. Also, Chinese politicians are perfectly free to require such things so it's odd that you're blaming western companies which only have power in China because politicians let them have power. Of course, massive unemployment rates tend to cause more issues so it's clear why they don't.
> Because otherwise he'd be paid $0 since it'd be cheaper to manufacture the car somewhere other than China.
I asked the exact same question to my then boss many many years ago on why Chinese software engineers are paid far less than American engineers. His answer was almost identical to yours above and we all know what happened in the last 10 years.
I asked the exact same question to my then boss many many years ago on why Chinese software engineers are paid far less than American engineers. His answer was almost identical to yours above and we all know what happened in the last 10 years.
Communist? NOPE. See all the billionaires and social classes in China. Dictatorship dressed up as communism, yes.
The current ruling class in China is very aware that people need to be happy with basic necessities or else.... That's all.
The current ruling class in China is very aware that people need to be happy with basic necessities or else.... That's all.
I don't think anybody would call China "communist" beyond a symbolic level.
agreed. China feels more like a big oligarchy.
Cool, so we can implement China's policies towards housing, industry, and private property in the US without anyone complaining about us being communists?
Sure, but when the people who call themselves communists have a more competitive real estate market, it's still pretty damning.
Don't tell them it's a law of economics, they might want to try to vote to change it
Why would real estate owners acting in their own self interest want that ? The funny thing I notice is that the left rhetoric evaporates as soon is it has a chance to affect valuation of persons own assets.
[deleted]
False comparison to SF. Build dense highrises in the middle of nowhere of course make the rent cheap. The dense highrises in the middle of Shanghai would have outrageous rent. Desirable places are always expensive.
It isn't just supply though, but essentially inequality. Chinese cities have completely different demographics than western cities. If you want to live somewhere popular in China rents, and real estate values, are rapidly increasing.
Housing isn't like manufactured goods where the marginal cost decrease the more you make. Since the more you build in one area the less available space there is. If you want to decrease cost you have to supply more space.
Still that is only the supply side. As long as there are people, or even an increase of people, that are willing to pay it never becomes affordable even if there are comparable.
Housing isn't like manufactured goods where the marginal cost decrease the more you make. Since the more you build in one area the less available space there is. If you want to decrease cost you have to supply more space.
Still that is only the supply side. As long as there are people, or even an increase of people, that are willing to pay it never becomes affordable even if there are comparable.
> Housing isn't like manufactured goods where the marginal cost decrease the more you make. Since the more you build in one area the less available space there is. If you want to decrease cost you have to supply more space.
This was probably true in 1750, but today you can build up. A 2000 SQ foot home can become a 40,000 SQ foot tower.
This was probably true in 1750, but today you can build up. A 2000 SQ foot home can become a 40,000 SQ foot tower.
Exactly. We can increase density. There isn't unlimited land, but there aren't unlimited resources for any product.
Marginal building cost per unit of space increases in this case.
Right but sometimes the super expensive part is just the land it's built on.
My unit has a construction cost that's significantly less than half of my unit's total value. The tiny one story ramblers across the street all sold for over a million a pop, but the houses were worth ~negative to the purchaser and got torn down and replaced.
My unit has a construction cost that's significantly less than half of my unit's total value. The tiny one story ramblers across the street all sold for over a million a pop, but the houses were worth ~negative to the purchaser and got torn down and replaced.
Increasing density is optimal for everyone and the environment. The more spread out we are, the more inefficiencies there are in our infrastructure, in our environmental footprint, and in the inconvenience of getting places when they are further apart.
Its purely cultural, but its burning trillions of dollars a year in maintenance, wasted time, and wasted potential.
Its purely cultural, but its burning trillions of dollars a year in maintenance, wasted time, and wasted potential.
I am not making a moral argument. When you build more housing you use the underlying resource, which is "space". That resource becomes more scares, so everything else being equal the next unit of housing is more expensive. That is why individual area in most cities never becomes more affordable by themselves. The way to get affordable housing isn't to supply more housing as such, but to supply it from a cheaper more available resources.
Unless the underlying resource you're referring to is airspace we can definitely increase the supply of housing (and in some cases quite dramatically) without using more of the underlying resource by allowing the construction of taller buildings.
The underlying resource is space. If you are in an open field that you own with no neighbors and no zoning then the first unit of space is you pitching a tent. The second unit is another tent slightly to the left. If you are in a city were land is expensive, a prior building might have to be razed, a new advanced one planned for years and you might block someone else's view, the unit of space is very expensive. So now you have razed the building, built a new larger one and added to the supply of housing, what happens to the next unit? Everything else being equal it gets even harder to produce.
You can shift supply by e.g. changing zoning. Now you have more resources. But it doesn't change the equation, so eventually you might end up in an even worse situation were it is even harder do the same thing again. The even bigger problem however is that you don't necessarily get choose what should happen. Or maybe something is already shifting demand, like demographics.
You can shift supply by e.g. changing zoning. Now you have more resources. But it doesn't change the equation, so eventually you might end up in an even worse situation were it is even harder do the same thing again. The even bigger problem however is that you don't necessarily get choose what should happen. Or maybe something is already shifting demand, like demographics.
Housing demand, despite what NIMBYs might think in the Bay Area, is not infinite at any price point. Eventually all the people that want to live in an area do live in that area and equilibrium is reached. For much of human history, that is how the entire world operated - there were no zoning codes constraining the ability of developers to build buildings for those with the money to afford them, and the king would almost never find reason to deny permits - more people in more central location meant more trade skill labor which was much more easily taxed than subsistence farmers.
You build for density until you hit the actual physical limits on density, and then you have a claim to the infeasibility of housing everyone where they want to be. We are so radically far away from such a threshold it is laughable, in much the same way some purport our understanding of the universe is nearly complete, or that we have near total mastery of our planet - neither are remotely close to happening and are just hubris on the part of those who can't comprehend how much more there is left to do.
We could have cities hundreds of stories high, entire populations housed in glass pyramids taller than Everest, population densities in excess of a hundred thousand per mile. And that doesn't need to imply poverty, squalor, or suffering - we are fully capable of building dense well. It is an independent knob of consideration that only shows correlation today because of cultural motivations and social pressure to make dense housing suck to punish the poor because only the poor live in dense housing because dense housing sucks.
You build for density until you hit the actual physical limits on density, and then you have a claim to the infeasibility of housing everyone where they want to be. We are so radically far away from such a threshold it is laughable, in much the same way some purport our understanding of the universe is nearly complete, or that we have near total mastery of our planet - neither are remotely close to happening and are just hubris on the part of those who can't comprehend how much more there is left to do.
We could have cities hundreds of stories high, entire populations housed in glass pyramids taller than Everest, population densities in excess of a hundred thousand per mile. And that doesn't need to imply poverty, squalor, or suffering - we are fully capable of building dense well. It is an independent knob of consideration that only shows correlation today because of cultural motivations and social pressure to make dense housing suck to punish the poor because only the poor live in dense housing because dense housing sucks.
Rents aren’t increasing that rapidly compared to real estate prices. There is a lot of slack supply as far as rentals go, to the extreme that many speculators don’t even bother renovating their properties for the rental market.
You supply more by building up. Or even down, but that's a lot more expensive.
Of course housing is subject to the iron law of supply and demand. It's remarkable that so many people find seemingly-reasonable justifications for denying it.
There must be a name for this pattern, which occurs in areas of life as varied as technical debates, climate science, and health. The common thread is that there's some strong effect that smart people would prefer not to be true and that these smart people spend an inordinate amount of time and social capital finding seemingly-rational justifications for denying this strong effect. The result of this high-IQ motivated reasoning is an impenetrable mess of dueling blog posts, cherry-picked studies, and sophisticated personal sniping that leads regular people to throw their hands up in confusion and do nothing.
An example of this effect: the "zombie claim" (an idea that keeps circulating after being debunked, mostly because it's rhetorically useful) that building housing doesn't decrease prices because developers build only high-end housing. Granted, this effect might be true for very limited times under very limited circumstances in some special region of the supply curve, but it's clearly not a general principle. But there are just enough studies purporting to show this effect that people who want to block housing in general can point to some official-looking LaTeX-typeset thing and say "Look! Economics proves that construction doesn't lower prices!". By the time someone gets around to reading that article and commenting, "if you read beyond the abstract, the article it doesn't say that...", someone's already made some other blog post with the same discredited idea. It goes on and on and on and on and on.
I've become increasingly convinced that the whole scientific and rational enterprise only works in collaborative mode, when there's some shared desire to find the truth. You can never convince someone of something by using reason and evidence, and your counterparty will suspect (rightfully so!) that your "evidence" is just the sort of rhetoric-disguised-as-dialectic that I'm talking about.
It's a dismal conclusion.
There must be a name for this pattern, which occurs in areas of life as varied as technical debates, climate science, and health. The common thread is that there's some strong effect that smart people would prefer not to be true and that these smart people spend an inordinate amount of time and social capital finding seemingly-rational justifications for denying this strong effect. The result of this high-IQ motivated reasoning is an impenetrable mess of dueling blog posts, cherry-picked studies, and sophisticated personal sniping that leads regular people to throw their hands up in confusion and do nothing.
An example of this effect: the "zombie claim" (an idea that keeps circulating after being debunked, mostly because it's rhetorically useful) that building housing doesn't decrease prices because developers build only high-end housing. Granted, this effect might be true for very limited times under very limited circumstances in some special region of the supply curve, but it's clearly not a general principle. But there are just enough studies purporting to show this effect that people who want to block housing in general can point to some official-looking LaTeX-typeset thing and say "Look! Economics proves that construction doesn't lower prices!". By the time someone gets around to reading that article and commenting, "if you read beyond the abstract, the article it doesn't say that...", someone's already made some other blog post with the same discredited idea. It goes on and on and on and on and on.
I've become increasingly convinced that the whole scientific and rational enterprise only works in collaborative mode, when there's some shared desire to find the truth. You can never convince someone of something by using reason and evidence, and your counterparty will suspect (rightfully so!) that your "evidence" is just the sort of rhetoric-disguised-as-dialectic that I'm talking about.
It's a dismal conclusion.
[deleted]
> You can never convince someone of something by using reason and evidence, and your counterparty will suspect (rightfully so!) that your "evidence" is just the sort of rhetoric-disguised-as-dialectic that I'm talking about.
I personally agreed with your general idea, but the place where we are today was developed intentionally via propaganda systems designed to question the validity of expertise. If a person believes that government bureaucrats are all ineffective, that vaccines are dangerous, that all scientists believed a new ice age was going to start back in the 80's, then it is very easy to deny anything that experts say, and that your gut is right most of the time. This, of course, couldn't be further from the truth.
There are huge swaths of humanity that are willing to change their opinions based on the presentation of evidence. What is clear is that they are not good at generating enough political power to start the grand collective ideas that are necessary to fight homelessness locally (I know that I'm having trouble pushing housing first ideas - I think that Americans are punitive, culturally), or to fight climate change globally.
Still a dismal conclusion.
I personally agreed with your general idea, but the place where we are today was developed intentionally via propaganda systems designed to question the validity of expertise. If a person believes that government bureaucrats are all ineffective, that vaccines are dangerous, that all scientists believed a new ice age was going to start back in the 80's, then it is very easy to deny anything that experts say, and that your gut is right most of the time. This, of course, couldn't be further from the truth.
There are huge swaths of humanity that are willing to change their opinions based on the presentation of evidence. What is clear is that they are not good at generating enough political power to start the grand collective ideas that are necessary to fight homelessness locally (I know that I'm having trouble pushing housing first ideas - I think that Americans are punitive, culturally), or to fight climate change globally.
Still a dismal conclusion.
I think that kind of breathing room is also important for fostering entrepreneurship. I moved to China from Hong Kong, you do have some people bumming around but you also have some pretty bright people who quit their jobs to really grind and work on a business idea. I can't imagine doing that in hk, pretty soon your just priced out of soaring rent and cost of living
Some times I feel that HN is a real estate forum. People, why are you so crazed about housing? :)
I have following thing to say about real estate in China as a person who's been going in and out of China for last 12 years: conventional supply and demand economics fail to rationally explain the market, alike many other things in the country.
There are big cities with really constrained supply, not unlike California, and still having low rents, and there is Shanghai, with new suburbs and microdistricts popping up every year, but still having highest rent in China despite high vacancy rate even in the city centre.
Housing in China is also a very emotionally charged topic. A lot of status connotation is attached to it, and there is peer pressure like "no wife for you without a house."
Most Chinese I meet can't conceal their bemusement when they see foreigners being so unconcerned with housing issue. These people don't know that in most of the world, renting an apartment, and moreover luxury one, is more expensive than paying for mortgage, and are utterly shocked when I show them the digits. Chinese don't realise just how blessed they are with low rents.
And yes, there are still Chinese out there who are shocked discovering that "most Americans are still living in wooden houses," and that ones who live there tend to be richer than ones buying highrise apartments.
I have following thing to say about real estate in China as a person who's been going in and out of China for last 12 years: conventional supply and demand economics fail to rationally explain the market, alike many other things in the country.
There are big cities with really constrained supply, not unlike California, and still having low rents, and there is Shanghai, with new suburbs and microdistricts popping up every year, but still having highest rent in China despite high vacancy rate even in the city centre.
Housing in China is also a very emotionally charged topic. A lot of status connotation is attached to it, and there is peer pressure like "no wife for you without a house."
Most Chinese I meet can't conceal their bemusement when they see foreigners being so unconcerned with housing issue. These people don't know that in most of the world, renting an apartment, and moreover luxury one, is more expensive than paying for mortgage, and are utterly shocked when I show them the digits. Chinese don't realise just how blessed they are with low rents.
And yes, there are still Chinese out there who are shocked discovering that "most Americans are still living in wooden houses," and that ones who live there tend to be richer than ones buying highrise apartments.
Beijing isn’t as hot as Shanghai real estate wise, but I could never get my head around how an apartment that would sell for a million dollars would rent out for just 10k RMB/month. Why would anyone even bother buying with such lousy rent to sale ratios?
Anyways, I saved a lot on rent during my 9 years in China.
Anyways, I saved a lot on rent during my 9 years in China.
Why would anyone even bother buying with such lousy rent to sale ratios?
You weren't a tenant. You were a placeholder.
Your function was to pay enough money for the owner to pay the property taxes and maintenance until the value of the home rose to a level where it was worth selling.
I live in such a place. The Chinese woman who owns my house is just waiting for the market to reach the right price point where she can sell.
In the meantime, my function as a renter is to keep the place clean and safe and do basic maintenance. That's not what's spelled out on the lease, but at an abstracted level, I know that's what I am to her.
You weren't a tenant. You were a placeholder.
Your function was to pay enough money for the owner to pay the property taxes and maintenance until the value of the home rose to a level where it was worth selling.
I live in such a place. The Chinese woman who owns my house is just waiting for the market to reach the right price point where she can sell.
In the meantime, my function as a renter is to keep the place clean and safe and do basic maintenance. That's not what's spelled out on the lease, but at an abstracted level, I know that's what I am to her.
I got the opposite idea from my landlord, he said something like “prices are too high right now so no one is buying”.
Chinese real estate is bizarre.
Chinese real estate is bizarre.
I heard the market for buying is different than many other places because of the social pressure to own - when a man marries for example they often need to have a house, or else it could put the marriage in jeopardy, in effect increasing the value of the property beyond the value of a place to live; extended families are willing to pile on to help a young person afford that house, so owners know they can overcharge for their properties. But idk how true that is/how much it explains the crazy divide between rent and sale prices.
>Why would anyone even bother buying with such lousy rent to sale ratios?
Speculation. Prices have been going up at crazy rates for years. Something like 10% a year isn't uncommon. Millions of people got rich just buying and selling few years later. That, and the necessity to buy before marriage that forces people to stop renting.
I don't envy them. Some people spend up to 70% of their income into 30 year mortgages, based on pure conviction that housing prices will always go up.
Speculation. Prices have been going up at crazy rates for years. Something like 10% a year isn't uncommon. Millions of people got rich just buying and selling few years later. That, and the necessity to buy before marriage that forces people to stop renting.
I don't envy them. Some people spend up to 70% of their income into 30 year mortgages, based on pure conviction that housing prices will always go up.
> most Americans are still living in wooden houses
that is pretty much an American thing, e.g. in Sydney, people don't buy wooden match boxes, they prefer double brick federation home or californian bungalow.
that is pretty much an American thing, e.g. in Sydney, people don't buy wooden match boxes, they prefer double brick federation home or californian bungalow.
You could try to explain the last point with "imagine never having to listen to your neighbor's stereo at 2:00 in the morning.
Re: economics, not an expert obviously but would guess that China interferes as much give or take as California in the housing market.
> conventional supply and demand economics fail to rationally explain the market
This is true for SF Bay Area as well.
This is true for SF Bay Area as well.
Conventional supply and demand economics perfectly explains both of these situations. SF has a massive under supply of housing, and restrictive zoning rules that prevent supply from increasing. China centrally funds huge amounts of developments, and many of those developments aren’t met with massive demand, so they end up with a lot of real estate that they struggle to give away in some situations.
Throw into the mix the fact that San Francisco wages are approximately 10x Chongqing wages with land at a premium as a result, and so even without zoning restrictions in SF you'd expect new development there to be expensive (and similarly even without government-subsidised overbuilding in Chinese second tier cities you'd expect rental costs to be lower than most Western cities)
Nailed it.
Wow when you don't treat housing as an investment it turns out that prices reach sane levels? Who knew?
It's impossible to treat housing as an investment when so much is being built every year. There's no scarcity. In Japan, and probably also China, houses are depreciating assets.
There is tremendous housing scarcity where housing is scarce and in demand, such as with transit access to major metro areas.
The depreciating housing is in places people don't want to live. In general modern societies are centralizing in cities to a degree never before seen, but that migration is stymied by catastrophic amounts of NIMBYism and regulation holding back density.
In Tokyo most properties don't depreciate that much if at all, and modern Japanese building code means new structures are much more permanent and last longer. It takes time for the culture to shift as with all things, but the Tokyo metro won't stay contrarian to every other metro for long - its been trending away from the always-deprecating building for over 30 years now.
The depreciating housing is in places people don't want to live. In general modern societies are centralizing in cities to a degree never before seen, but that migration is stymied by catastrophic amounts of NIMBYism and regulation holding back density.
In Tokyo most properties don't depreciate that much if at all, and modern Japanese building code means new structures are much more permanent and last longer. It takes time for the culture to shift as with all things, but the Tokyo metro won't stay contrarian to every other metro for long - its been trending away from the always-deprecating building for over 30 years now.
Back in the late 80s and early 90s, Japan introduced 100 year mortgages (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/106195...).
Then the economy went into a multidecade slide.
Then the economy went into a multidecade slide.
Plenty of people in China treat housing as an investment. There is an over-supply of investment and development, leading to an abundance of units and affordable rental rates.
Preventing people from profiting by supplying the market (aka treating the good in question as an investment) leads to shortages and high prices, as the history of rent control amply demonstrates. Anecdotally, San Francisco has had some of the most stringent rent control laws in the US over the last 50 years and today has the highest rental rates in the world.
Preventing people from profiting by supplying the market (aka treating the good in question as an investment) leads to shortages and high prices, as the history of rent control amply demonstrates. Anecdotally, San Francisco has had some of the most stringent rent control laws in the US over the last 50 years and today has the highest rental rates in the world.
A construction boom is great, but temporary. Best way to ensure housing isn't treated as an investment or speculative commodity is to have a tax on land value.
Unfortunately, this view is very unpopular in the US, particularly among the most powerful special interests and voting blocs.
Unfortunately, this view is very unpopular in the US, particularly among the most powerful special interests and voting blocs.
People are going to treat housing as an investment so long as government institutions artificially constrain it to such a preposterous degree that you can exploit unmet demand in perpetuity.
Even in China precincts with more recognized property rights will see this effect where even on massive government works projects contractors just build around holdouts whom can exploit the growing demand for the land they are on.
Even in China precincts with more recognized property rights will see this effect where even on massive government works projects contractors just build around holdouts whom can exploit the growing demand for the land they are on.
China treats it like an investment. In fact it's probably typical Chinese speculation (that is the creation of fantastic bubbles) driving the construction of these large buildings.
It’s illegal to treat housing as a generational investment in China; after 100 years it goes to the state.
Chongqing:
Apartment (1 bedroom) in City Centre 307.91 $[1]
Average Monthly Net Salary (After Tax) 825.35 $[1]
37%
San Francisco:
Apartment (1 bedroom) in City Centre 3,386.72 $[2]
Average Monthly Net Salary (After Tax) 6,497.75
52%
Oklahoma City:
Apartment (1 bedroom) in City Centre 857.50 $[3]
Average Monthly Net Salary (After Tax) 2,639.56 $[3]
32%
[1] https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/in/Chongqing?displayCu...
[2] https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/in/San-Francisco
[3] https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/in/Oklahoma-City
Apartment (1 bedroom) in City Centre 307.91 $[1]
Average Monthly Net Salary (After Tax) 825.35 $[1]
37%
San Francisco:
Apartment (1 bedroom) in City Centre 3,386.72 $[2]
Average Monthly Net Salary (After Tax) 6,497.75
52%
Oklahoma City:
Apartment (1 bedroom) in City Centre 857.50 $[3]
Average Monthly Net Salary (After Tax) 2,639.56 $[3]
32%
[1] https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/in/Chongqing?displayCu...
[2] https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/in/San-Francisco
[3] https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/in/Oklahoma-City
Not sure exactly what your point is. Oklahoma City has a density of 235 people per square mile according to http://www.usa.com/rank/us--population-density--metro-area-r.... San Francisco's is 1300.
Of course it's cheaper to house people when land isn't scarce.
Of course it's cheaper to house people when land isn't scarce.
Not sure exactly what your point is. Chongqing has a density of 960 people per square mile according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chongqing.
The wikipedia entry (and the official entity?) is closer to a US state or large county, with a size of 31,000 square miles (this would put it at ~the 40th largest state).
If you take the urban population listed there and divide by the listed urban area you get 4,250. A bit above 960.
If you take the urban population listed there and divide by the listed urban area you get 4,250. A bit above 960.
What I see people missing here is the transportation aspect - land is only scarce in San Francisco if it’s permanently limited to a 7 by 7 mile square. Transportation increases the viable size of where you can live to access the city. So make land less scarce by building fast transit from other places.
That all said, it’s also a joke to think that SF uses its land wisely. What’s at the 24th st mission BART stop? A 1 story McDonald’s, what a great use of prime real estate to protect a treasured cultural relic.
That all said, it’s also a joke to think that SF uses its land wisely. What’s at the 24th st mission BART stop? A 1 story McDonald’s, what a great use of prime real estate to protect a treasured cultural relic.
Using Chongqing as example is kinda cheeky, it's a west side big city, but a rare one in which speculators haven't found the runaway success seen in other ones.
Chongqing is crazy overbuilt, which is weird since everything is so hilly there (think Seattle or San Francisco and then add even more hills). A lot of the speculation is along the lines that China is quickly urbanizing and farmers will eventually buy these apartments, but the farmers aren’t really rich enough to support the returns the speculators are looking for.
Chengdu is probably in a similar boat to Chongqing. Well, any tier 2 city actually.
Chengdu is probably in a similar boat to Chongqing. Well, any tier 2 city actually.
> Well, any tier 2 city actually.
Just came back from Hangzhou, the entire city is flooded with people in their early 20s. I think the speculation is mainly on those annual 10 million university graduates joining the workforces. Farmers are not going to buy those apartments in tier-2 cities, their sons/daughters with university degrees sometimes at postgraduate level are the ones buying.
Just came back from Hangzhou, the entire city is flooded with people in their early 20s. I think the speculation is mainly on those annual 10 million university graduates joining the workforces. Farmers are not going to buy those apartments in tier-2 cities, their sons/daughters with university degrees sometimes at postgraduate level are the ones buying.
There isn’t an infinite supply of those graduates. In fact, China is in for a serious demographic crunch over the next few years. Those kids are mostly from the cities anyways, rural education still has a long way to go (never met anyone at work in Beijing with a rural hukou, but maybe they just wouldn’t talk about that).
Hangzhou is tier-1, for sure.
Effectively ya, officially no. Zhejiang is rich in general.
Just want to shime in and recommend you to visit Chongqing. Incredibly interesting city to explore, great food and still has some rural China vibe that the other first tier cities start to lack.
Anywhere in particular you would recommend exploring for a future visit?
I was there for two days earlier this year and felt like I just scratched the surface.
I was there for two days earlier this year and felt like I just scratched the surface.
Are there any countries that do this and don't have really scary censorship and speech policies? I'd definitely want to live somewhere like that. It wouldn't be hard to end up financially independent in a place like that on a SWE salary.
Isn't this simple supply and demand? The housing price is too high? Build more houses or apartments. Yet San Francisco authorities tried every possible way to suppress supply: rent control and all kinds of regulations, to say the least. So much for so called "we fight for poor people".
I wonder how the traffic is like in these large Chinese cities. In India, esp Bangalore traffic and the crowding in the streets has grown up astronomically, and the road system can barely handle it.
Currently the top comment:
"Basically there were a lot of approx 35 story similar tower blocks and most people used public transport/taxis rather than having cars."
My understanding is that traffic does increase until a certain threshold of density is achieved and then it craters from there. Cities should probably be designed just above that.
"Basically there were a lot of approx 35 story similar tower blocks and most people used public transport/taxis rather than having cars."
My understanding is that traffic does increase until a certain threshold of density is achieved and then it craters from there. Cities should probably be designed just above that.
I think a more appropriate comparison is Chongqing and Tokyo.
Article makes me wonder if author ever set foot in Chongqing
and population control, that's an important factor controlling demand trough time
The result of Chinese population control is a significantly higher number of men than women. I'd personally rather pay more rent than live somewhere like that.
of course I agree with you
This kind of stuff https://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/article/1761639...
You'd want to put them in kind of nondescript areas to avoid taking out the historic stuff as mentioned in the article and maybe pay out 50% above market to existing buildings in the way so they are not too pissed off but it could be doable.