Compare that to the two regions' 5-year housing price index (a measure of the movement of housing prices). The Bay Area sits at 36 yet Houston at 25. Despite faster population growth, Houston's housing prices have not risen nearly as dramatically.
I have to imagine that can be at least partly attributed to the seemingly limitless number of houses being built around Houston.
(This comparison would probably make more sense if we could compare CSAs rather than MSAs but I couldn't find a breakdown of housing price trends at that level)
It also attracts much more foreign investment due to its location.
Texas has stronger ties to Latin America and the Middle East while still attracting a not-insignificant number of Asian buyers (Houston in particular has very strong ties to Asia). California obviously does get the bulk of investment from Asia.
http://www.realtor.org/sites/default/files/2014%20Profile%20...
Even if the rate of new construction pentupled, it wouldn't lower house prices; at best it'd make them increase at a slightly slower rate. It's a good idea on its own for the purposes of environment and urban development, but pretending that it'd suddenly allow a day laborer or a teacher's aide to be able to afford rent or ownership here adds as little as the people saying tech workers are source of all evil in the world.
SF's (SV's) problem is that it refuses to build houses commensurate to the number of people who move there. Any number of well paid jobs from any industry would have caused the same problem. High paying (middle class) jobs (outside of manufacturing) are not a problem.
> If this just means that tech is finally spreading out a bit
For better or worse, the exodus of tech companies out of SV could have been prevented. The valley could have captured nearly the entire industry if it just built more houses. Billions (likely trillions over the course of a few decades) of dollars will not flow into the local economy.