[ubernostrum]

This is a problem which will eventually leave shortsighted developers holding the bag if they're not forced to deal with it.

Think of it like overfishing: you could just as easily say overfishing is a public problem that private fishermen shouldn't be "forced" to solve through quotas. Some fishermen used to believe that, too, right up until the day there weren't any more fish for them to catch because they'd destroyed the population they relied on for their livelihoods.

If housing costs in and around SF don't get under control soon, we're going to have a lot of very rich people who can't do much because there won't be any Uber drivers, baristas, waiters, garbage collectors or really any lower-paid service-sector people to keep the area functioning. And that will pop the housing bubble in a way that's devastating to developers, but they currently don't believe they have any incentive to head it off -- let somebody else build the cheap housing, I'm going to build as expensive as I can!

[vedanta]

This would make sense if there was naturally 'cheap' housing and 'expensive' housing. There isn't. It's just housing. The fish analogy just doesn't work, we're talking about increasing supply of a durable good, not a natural resource. The only way is to make more. I'm sure tons of developers who don't bother playing the bay area would come back if cities lowered their BMR requirements. Leading to better designs, and more units. That plot of land that's designated mixed-use and has a gas station and a strip mall in the sunset isn't getting re-developed because developers know they'd have to do 25% BMR. With 0% BMR, that plot of land gets re-developed into 5-10 housing units. You're counting on prices being high-enough for redevelopment which is another self-fulfilling prophecy, instead of just building normal units. You can have 10% BMR and still get redevelopment quicker.

I would agree about the in-elasticity of the labor market, we're finding out right now. I see plenty of hiring signs around.

[ubernostrum]

This would make sense if there was naturally 'cheap' housing and 'expensive' housing. There isn't. It's just housing.

So luxury condos and basic apartments either don't exist, or are identical to each other?

[vedanta]

Are they both not housing? Can I not renovate one into another over a few weeks? I give developers more credit. If they want to make money, they need to figure out what the market will bare. And it's not their fault if only enough housing is being allowed that they can get away with making luxury only housing. If more was allowed without BMR conditions, there would be a much less price difference between what you find at avalon vs craigslist. The difference is actually not that much, everything is just very high and unaffordable period. Hence the dilemma we're in.

[ubernostrum]

Can I not renovate one into another over a few weeks?

Unlikely. I strongly suspect you don't actually understand anything about physical construction given your seeming belief that all housing units are fungible. So I'll simply state it for you clear and plain: they are not in fact all fungible.

And it's not their fault if only enough housing is being allowed that they can get away with making luxury only housing.

Ah, it's the evil gubmint's fault. Well, that explains a lot.

[vedanta]

Here's the economist saying housing is fungible, just for you: https://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/04/housing...

Did you read what I said enough to make a counterpoint with new information or thinking? Care to be wrong about other things?