[majormajor]

> Cities often had their priorities backwards and became very dependent on unsustainably high property values. Even if you started rezoning office buildings into housing, SF would be taking a double hit - there is less reason to live in SF and more housing would bring down values everywhere. Forgetting that these business districts are pretty undesirable places to live anyway.

Let's thought experiment this. In one world, you have a lot more housing supply, which would help stabilize the drain from people being priced out, and quite possibly swing SF back towards being a desirable place to live once it's no longer unattainably expensive (and spur jobs too because you'd need businesses to serve the people who'd otherwise leave or never come). Prices dip then plateau then gradually recover if you avert a "death spiral."

In one world, you do nothing, you shrug and say "homelessness isn't my problem, and I don't want any new housing or anything." Let's say you get that death spiral. What's happened to your property value then? NIMBYism ain't saving you there if far fewer people want to live there.

Other cities in the US, especially those which are less geographically constrained than SF, and a bit more practical than just "we're gonna say we care about homelessness instead of demonizing people, but actually we're not gonna do anything", have ongoing development and feel a lot healthier. There are likely still rental market dragons lurking (though many of these other cities are also less WFH-oriented/friendly) but they're in far better shape so far.

[legitster]

I don't disagree with anything here except the idea that (for most cities, at least) cheap housing creates growth. Especially after reading Alain Bertaud (who I would strongly recommend on this topic).

On the other side of the scale you have cities like Detroit. There is no shortage of cheap housing and culture. But without enough career prospects, the city struggles for opposite reasons. If anything, homelessness is actually worse because the city services are stretched so thin across such a large geographic area with so much poverty.

Most cities in the US are somewhere in the middle. SF is uniquely bad in how terribly they let basic livability get for even their highest income earners.

[majormajor]

> I don't disagree with anything here except the idea that (for most cities, at least) cheap housing creates growth. Especially after reading Alain Bertaud (who I would strongly recommend on this topic).

What would recommend as a starting point for Bertaud?

I think Rust Belt/NE US cities have a huge weather disadvantage that makes it hard for a place like Detroit to attract people back once they lose them; I don't think SF has that same problem. I see it as the difference between "affordable because of low demand" (where they're also competing with the literal middle of nowhere) and "affordable because of adequate supply". Once you jump-start the demand (with the jobs and all - another thing the Sun Belt cities and states did very deliberately) the cities in the latter situation that keep building so they stay "affordable-ish" will never be as affordable as the ones that simply aren't desirable, but they can also avoid being so fragile as modern SF. You gotta jump-start it first, but then the presence of continual new, affordable-ish housing becomes a factor that draws more business due to lower COL (like any of a number of relocation announcements from CA to TX).

(I would, though probably-controversially, claim that the biggest problem of SF in the last 20 years was not solely "didn't build enough housing" but "allowed way too much office space for the amount of residential they wanted" - I think they could've done slower residential demand growth in a more sustainable way if they'd better balanced what they wanted early on. The lack of balance meant the proceeds of the industry they did have couldn't be re-invested into other jobs and industries in the city, it was all just going to stupid high rent and property prices.)

[geodel]

Before I run this thought experiment, I'd like to know what percentage of top 20-30-50 cities in the world where average income people are not priced out of city centers / downtowns or other desirable areas.

[majormajor]

I don't entirely understand your question, but the one bit I do want to address is that it's somewhat tautological that average incomes will be priced out of [the most] desirable places.

The issue with SF that the OP here is trying to extrapolate to US cities as a whole is rather more like "priced out of literally every part of town other than a tent on the street" while at the same time having huge amounts of empty space in buildings, which is a very precarious position and one that's far less common in large US cities/metro areas. (There's also a unique aspect about SF being quite small, city-wise, by US standards and much of its surrounding suburbs also being obscenely expensive across the board; SF itself could suffer big hits to population and desirability and that may or may not have much impact on the rest of the Bay Area).