A lot of the systems are separated but not entirely. A major rain event can still overwhelm a sanitary system and inevitably ends up in the storm drains or local waterways headed to the bay so the systems are, unintentionally, merged.
Got it. I wasn't aware that any other city in the area had combined sewers.
When you build more houses you get more residents and more tax revenues which allows you to make better systems.
Housing costs in San Francisco are radically out of line with what construction costs would dictate due to the fact that people have spent the last 3-4 decades refusing to build more houses and just pretending that everything will work itself out. Places like San Francisco specifically create onerous regulations on what people can do with their land (i.e. they can't build denser housing) which drives up costs to a point they are radically higher than land costs and construction costs would dictate.
pretty much this.
as to the bolded: it is these very same tech jerk jizzrags that have moved into SF because of "its character," completely robbed the place of life and sterilized it to look like every block is some poorly-lit trendy coffee shop shit hole because that is actually what they want, then get angry that "the character" will vanish.
These are the assholes that rob the city of any and all character. Honestly, they should just move to the 20-30 miles away to where they actually work, and bitch about the "strip mall living" that they refuse to accept. These are some of the worst people anywhere.
I find that graph hard to interpret. It uses the cost of land as an input, but surely the cost of land is itself a function of the regulatory regime? There isn't an independent cost of land which can be considered prior to the effect of building regulations. The cost of land is strongly dependent on its legal status, no?
The paper that chart is based on specifically works to isolate the land value issue from the costs of land use regulation. In fact, the purpose of the paper was to make a better model as the cost of 'land' in other studies folds in the cost of regulation. Basically the idea is that if you look at two places with similar topographical constraints on building per capita they should have similar land costs. It turns out they do not.
You can read it here:
http://davidalbouy.net/landvalues.pdf
OK, that makes some sense. I'm not disagreeing with the claims so much as just thinking the whole topic seems horribly complicated and hence hard to think clearly about. And one would have to read the paper in detail to decide how much confidence to have in that graph.
I mean, not only will there be direct effects on land value of regulations, due to artificial scarcity, but also there's second-order knock-on effects, due to what effect regulation might have on the surrounding land development - a residential building with pretty open spaces around it will be more desirable than one with other high-density development around it. On the other hand, restrictive regulations might constrain economic growth and thus cause values to be lower than they would otherwise be. It seems quite complex.
I do know that I preferred London back when it was emptying out and the population was falling. I'm hoping if I hang on long enough everyone will decide to leave again, and I can spend my old age wandering the abandoned city like Charlton Heston in the Omega Man.
That $500 a foot number I used doesn't include land. That's actual construction cost. That number goes down if it's an entire tract. Though there aren't many places to build a new housing tract in SF.When you build more houses you get more residents and more tax revenues which allows you to make better systems.
Housing costs in San Francisco are radically out of line with what construction costs would dictate due to the fact that people have spent the last 3-4 decades refusing to build more houses and just pretending that everything will work itself out. Places like San Francisco specifically create onerous regulations on what people can do with their land (i.e. they can't build denser housing) which drives up costs to a point they are radically higher than land costs and construction costs would dictate.
That $500 a foot number I used doesn't include land. That's actual construction cost. That number goes down if it's an entire tract. Though there aren't many places to build a new housing tract in SF.
The land cost will always be high. SF has a very finite amount of real estate available.
Another thing that drives cost up is simply that us contractors charge a hell of a lot more to put up with the grief of working in SF. Personally, I refuse to accept work there because everything about it arduous. Just finding a place to park a truck is a nightmare, then wondering if you'll make it through the entire day with it getting broken into.
The far easier solution is for the tech industry to go elsewhere. There are any number of places with infrastructure already in place and reasonable construction costs.
Seems like you're overestimating by about 20%.
http://www.turnerandtownsend.com/en/perspectives/international-construction-market-survey-2019/#
Regardless, as the paper I linked shows regulatory burdens like zoning restrictions have very, very serious effects on housing cost.
The amount of land in San Francisco stayed the same over the last 20 years. It does not even remotely explain the run-up in housing prices.
Seems like you're overestimating by about 20%.
http://www.turnerandtownsend.com/en/perspectives/international-construction-market-survey-2019/#
Regardless, as the paper I linked shows regulatory burdens like zoning restrictions have very, very serious effects on housing cost.
The amount of land in San Francisco stayed the same over the last 20 years. It does not even remotely explain the run-up in housing prices.
What does explain it is common sense - people wanted to 'preserve the character of their neighborhood' so they refused to allow new houses to be built for years despite soaring demand. This massively enriched anyone who already owned a home there and screwed everyone else over. Now everyone else who lives there is paying the price for their foolishness and selfishness.
The real answer is to abolish most zoning on a state level because the incumbent homeowners who dominate local politics have shown that they cannot be trusted to enact good housing policy. After all, they have a direct financial stake in NOT enacting good housing policy as it makes their homes worth more.
In other places they can't recruit the talent they need, that's why they are where they are despite the high costs. I'm sure they would rather pay lower rents and salaries elsewhere but companies go where the market demands. It would be good for the country if more areas outside of the expensive coastal metros could become more economically competitive but so far that just hasn't been the case.
But what exactly is the solution? Note: I agree with you in full as far identifying what the problem is for the high costs of housing in liberal urban cities... But even if you get the zoning laws taken care of, etc... You erect large ass apartment buildings that are 60 stories tall for lots of homes...
I feel like the end result will be the same as previous... people that have a good amount of wealth (that are CRUCIAL to a city *Cough*Tax Revenue*Cough*) are going to leave for suburbs? It's like rinse and repeat of Baltimore, Detroit, etc...
When you build more houses you get more residents and more tax revenues which allows you to make better systems.
Housing costs in San Francisco are radically out of line with what construction costs would dictate due to the fact that people have spent the last 3-4 decades refusing to build more houses and just pretending that everything will work itself out. Places like San Francisco specifically create onerous regulations on what people can do with their land (i.e. they can't build denser housing) which drives up costs to a point they are radically higher than land costs and construction costs would dictate.
The solution is for big tech to stop trying to cram everyone into the Bay Area, or making people take big pay cuts when moving elsewhere. They are effectively subsidizing this craziness with cost of living adjustments.
What did he post that is factually incorrect?Your posts and links to confirmation bias get more desperate as time goes by. What meds are you on/(off)?
Not to mention the sidewalks!Got it. I wasn't aware that any other city in the area had combined sewers.
Yes, there's surely some endogeneity that can't be entirely eliminated but I think the results coincide with a gut check of 'if it's harder to build houses here it's going to be more expensive'.
As far as cities go I don't know, I grew up in the 80's and 90's when America's cities continued their emptying out that started in the 60's and 70's and our cities were not very nice places to live then. My dad worked as a private investigator in Philadelphia during those years and he had some... interesting stories.
I guess we could start calling them sewer walks, since that's pretty much what they are.Not to mention the sidewalks!
San Frans problems are self created as are many US cities with housing crunches.
That's the same as the going price on the other side of the bay where I build. I know exactly what those prices are because that's where I've been working since 1986.Seems like you're overestimating by about 20%.
Of course they are. That's not an accident, it's a plan. It's one of the reasons everyone wants to move to those city's.Basically all long running housing shortages in the US are caused by local policy.
That's the same as the going price on the other side of the bay where I build. I know exactly what those prices are because that's where I've been working since 1986.
It's also another reason not to go to SF. The places where I build they don't shit on the street, and the money is the same if your figures are correct.
The rest of it is meaningless. The people that live in SF get to decide what they want the city to look like, and where homes can be built. That you want to turn it into a hive doesn't matter, the folks who live there say no, and they're voice is the only one that matters. While I'm sure some would love to see Golden Gate park covered in low income condos, the people who live there now have the right to say no. And that's as it should be.