News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Employment, construction, and the cost of San Francisco a... by tptacek on Tuesday May 17, 2016 @07:45PM (#11718567)
Is there a coherent argument you can make that doesn't depend on upper-income people shunning lower-income neighborhoods in San Francisco? Because the evidence strongly suggests that they don't: that when luxury housing is unavailable, upper-income people in the Bay Area move on to claim lower-income housing.

(I lived in Bayview for a bit, and I was hardly the only tech person I knew who lived there.)

Re:Employment, construction, and the cost of San Francisco a... by timr on Tuesday May 17, 2016 @08:01PM (#11718650)
"Is there a coherent argument you can make that doesn't depend on upper-income people shunning lower-income neighborhoods in San Francisco? Because the evidence strongly suggests that they don't"

I'm not claiming that they do. I'm arguing the opposite: if you build only luxury, it doesn't help poor people much, because most people will try to get the cheapest, nicest housing they can find. Building luxury units helps only to the extent that building anything here helps -- and if we believe the OP, it doesn't help very much at all.

Basically, this: you lived in Bayview, so you know who lives there. Knocking down every existing low-density home in Bayview and replacing it with market-rate housing would displace a huge number of poor folks. It probably also helps lower aggregate rents for everyone in SF by $40 a month or whatever, but that's thin gruel to the people who were there before.

This is the fundamental dilemma facing all construction in San Francisco.

Re:Employment, construction, and the cost of San Francisco a... by tptacek on Wednesday May 18, 2016 @11:32AM (#11722648)
Since I didn't advocate bulldozing Bayview for luxury condos, I'm not sure where to go from here. It seems like you've conceded my central point.
Re:Employment, construction, and the cost of San Francisco a... by timr on Wednesday May 18, 2016 @09:00PM (#11727215)
Only in the sense that I disagree completely and shown that you're wrong. ;-)

There's no guarantee that building luxury housing lowers prices, which is what you were implying. You have to take it on a case-by-case basis.