[tomasien]

It's not intuitively clear to me what the point of this article is. Is it challenging the premise that building more housing stops the growth (or reverses the growth) of housing in urban areas? It seems to be but then most of what is talked about is not that.

The evidence for "more housing = slower rising or shrinking housing costs" is so strong in places like Brooklyn and Seattle that it seems almost impossible to really to challenge it.

[rmah]

The article's thesis is that building more housing does not reduce wealth inequality. Which makes sense. However, that's not why people are demanding more housing in places like San Francisco. They want more housing so that housing prices and rents will stabilize or decline. This allows people at lower income levels to have better quality of life. They are, of course, still at lower income levels. The article calls this a failure. Others may call it a success.

[tomasien]

Thank you - that was incredibly hard to parse.

[clairity]

i also found the article confounding for not stating its positive thesis clearly, rather than this passive "‘Build More Housing’ Is No Match for Inequality" phrasing.

"so what is the match?" is the natural next question to answer, but the author simply doesn't even acknowledge such a question could exist. cortesoft points to one answer[0]: induced demand. the article hints at underlying land value rising because of the concentration of wealth in city centers is one reason.

like probably many others, i think affordable housing requires a combination of many economic thrusts: upzoning, reducing unnecessary regulatory costs (e.g., reduce bureaucratic friction rather than loosen safety codes), improving mass transit (reduce construction costs here too), mixed-use as default, encouraging small local businesses, last-mile transportation innovations, strengthening labor, progressive tax reform, etc.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19872674