Also how many of those high rises are residential?
Single bedroom apartments within a short, reasonably efficient, rapid transit commute of midtown can and do go for drastically less money.
The world is literally full of cities that have sane housing and transit policy. If you don’t like New York, try Barcelona or Paris as examples.
The Bay Area is just an abject failure at this, and it’s getting worse. My argument stands, commenting on this topic is like watching one of those “My 600lb Life” shows or something and screaming at the TV. Sure, I get that eventually there’s subtlety to this topic, but for now maybe stop eating 15,000 calories a day.
Or, in this case, stop building massive centers of employment that are 3 stories tall and surrounded by parking lots and wondering why shit isn’t working.
And this phenomenon is unknown in other cities?
Are you addressing what the author wrote because it seems like Scott Alexander says it may be more complicated than you claim. He wrote:
>suppose San Francisco dectupled its housing growth for decades, until it was packed border to border with skyscrapers, and was exactly as dense as Manhattan. In a simple supply-based model, the glut of supply should make rents crash to only a few hundred dollars a month or less. But in actual Manhattan, single-bedroom apartments cost $3800 a month – even more than in San Francisco! If your theory predicts that turning a city into Manhattan will make rents plummet, then consider that turning Manhattan into Manhattan made rents much worse, and so maybe your theory is wrong.