The article, by Michael Andersen, tries to summarize a detailed analysis in a blog post published over the weekend by Eric Fischer.
Read through Andersen’s summary, then wade through some or all of Fischer’s original.
It’s really very interesting to see the data for housing and rents charted over a long period of time. These data allowed Fischer to calculate how changes in employment or rates of new construction would impact rents in the city.
The research concluded that there is no question that along with 1) high employment and 2) good incomes (both good things), the third factor that drove high housing prices was 3) a lack of new construction.
Building new things is good, there is no disputing this.
At least, that's what Fischer's research concluded.
But the Andersen's original contribution is this idea: The real trick is not just to build more, but to make sure that it is gorgeous.
He cited Prague as an example of this.
Here is one of the first images I got when I googled "Prague neighborhoods".
http://cdn.wandertooth.com/wp-
Every building in Prague is distinctive and beautiful, yet surprisingly simple and modest. This is how most people in Prague live.
Nothing could be more different from the modern buildings of Honolulu, which are both generic and bland, yet expensive.
http://www.civilbeat.com/2015/
This is at least partly based on the real estate market in Hawaii: Build anything cheaply, and someone will buy it.
But there might be a cultural component, of a small-town ethos of trying not to show off by being too distinctive.
http://www.civilbeat.com/2014/
Anyway, when one googles "Prague suburbs", this is one of the first images:
http://i.lidovky.cz/11/111/
It's just as bland and crappy as anything in Honolulu. Also, it is not low-rise apartments as within Prague, but high-rise. And it is most likely owned by the government. And this is where most of the population of Prague lives, outside the city proper in big, tall, ugly public housing. Suburbs in Europe are tall and cheap. Ain't pretty, but that keeps costs down.
These elements are missing from the
article. For example, San Francisco is surrounded by mountains and
ocean, without much room for suburban expansion (unlike cities in
Texas). No mention of that.
Moreover, even
in the staunchest outposts of authoritarian capitalism, the government
takes a direct hand in housing. IIRC, in Singapore, 80% of housing built
by the government, although it is 90% owned by the occupant; in Hong
Kong, the government owns half the homes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Historically,
in Europe, wealthy people lived in the cities, with the poor on the
outskirts. With the Industrial Revolution in England, this reversed,
with the wealthy escaping to the suburbs; this became the pattern in the
English-speaking world. Today, in the US, poor people are moving into
the suburbs and the suburbs are expanding; young, educated, creative
people are moving to the cities, but the cities are shrinking (and
eventually, when they have kids, these yuppies will move to suburbs,
too).
Also, Prague was historically a German colony,
and for centuries wealthy Germans poured money into Prague, turning it
into their own little Disneyland. Of course Prague looks beautiful, it
is the Germanic version of Monaco (communism sure did not make Prague
pretty).
An even less pleasant observation revolves
around the orderliness of civic life and the nature of public housing in
the US as opposed to Asia and Europe. In places like Singapore, any
kind of disorder is simply not tolerated, and this facilitates urban
life. That's very different from the US. The US is not like Japan or
Germany. (This American "individualism" is related to the American
penchant for houses over apartments.)
Also, it's been
relentlessly observed by commenters on your blog that despite Hawaii's
economy being based on tourism, the facilities in the beach parks in
Hawaii tend to go unrepaired. If much or most of the housing in Hawaii
were owned by the state or local government, what condition would it be
in?
