I agree with most of this, but "concessions for low-income housing" don't actually achieve the goal of making housing more affordable, because they penalize developers for developing.
The effect is to redistribute a small quantity of housing to the lucky poor--and I mean "lucky" because the waiting list for affordable housing in NYC is years long--without voters really feeling like their wealth is being redistributed. But I live here and $3000 is redistributed from my bank account every month; unfortunately, it is redistributed to a rich landlord rather than the deserving.
Every single time rent in NYC or San Francisco is brought up, everyone makes comments like "I only pay $500 a month for my ten-bedroom house in Kansas!" And the reason that rent in NYC is higher than rent in Kansas or Pittsburgh, etc. is simply because more people want to live there. It's simple supply and demand.
It's more than simple supply and demand. It's artificially low supply and increased demand.
Sweetheart deals for luxury housing and rent controlled housing mean that developers are going to put more time, energy and money into bringing upper income housing into NYC while the middle and lower income people are left with fewer options.
Because of the geography and municipal structure of the area, middle and upper-middle income housing is doing quite well here.
NYC has the highest pop density of just about any city in the world. It has extremely high demand, due to its celebrity status making it a magnet for the whole world.
well it's restricted supply, especially in SF. If more high-rise apartments were built in downtown SF (and there's demand, but just too much pushback from local officials), this debate would probably not be happening at all.
It's not like SF is crowded, it's just that we've built really bad buildings for holding a lot of people.
I don't know. In every built up city I've been to, I live in one now (on the 16th floor of a 30 story apartment)...with high density, the prices just seem to go up and up with the high rises.
Can you point out a city that built up and is affordable (with a good economy also)?
Chicago's economy isn't San Francisco's, or New York's, and it doesn't have many exciting software jobs or world-class outdoor recreation. But it is still a big city with big-city opportunities and many well-paying jobs. And it clearly demonstrates that a sufficient housing stock guarantees no building type, even skyscrapers, are inherently tied to high prices. Just as San Francisco's predicament demonstrates that keeping old buildings in place doesn't hold down prices.
Tokyo is pretty reasonable. A 1-person apartment is under $1k/month no matter where in the city you are, you can get something student-sized for $600 a month. Not $3k/month for sure.
From personal experience, at least, supply is _not_ an issue in Tokyo. You can go to a real estate agent and go see like 4 or 5 places in a day and take it almost immediately.
This is compared to (second hand stories) of apartments in Paris where you have 10 people show up to look at 1 apartment and it's a crapshoot whether you can get it.
The unfortunate reality is that NYC was not as expensive until fairly recently, and lots of long-time residents have been utterly priced out of their long-time home.
The population of Pittsburgh has been declining for over 50 years. It's likely to have a lower cost for housing since demand is disappearing. SF/NYC have the opposite problem of limited supply of housing and increasing population.
The effect is to redistribute a small quantity of housing to the lucky poor--and I mean "lucky" because the waiting list for affordable housing in NYC is years long--without voters really feeling like their wealth is being redistributed. But I live here and $3000 is redistributed from my bank account every month; unfortunately, it is redistributed to a rich landlord rather than the deserving.