I have my doubts about this. I would be interested to see evidence that you can actually drive prices down by increasing housing supply.
Because when I've been in a position to watch some dramatic housing supply buildouts in a few areas, my observation has been that generally been that the owners price (at least) somewhat above market rates for existing housing -- after all, it's new. Often it's marketed as luxury housing and leased/sold at multiples of the median price.
There's a few places I've observed a decrease in price. It's not where supply is increased, though, it's where demand drops, usually because the economic activity of the region drops off, but sometimes because of conflict/crime or health hazards.
If I'm right, then there are still two options -- build more or don't build more. Each case may have its own merits, but there's not a case that excludes prices going up for SF and the Bay Area.
Short of the current state of economic activity in the area turning out to be an unsustainable bubble or a major disaster, anyway.
AFAIK you can reduce housing price through new building, but most places that can do this expand horizontally outward into undeveloped spaces. This creates the sprawl effect, though, which has its own issues. As for cities, I'm not aware of a city successfully creating affordable housing through new construction and renovation.
I have my doubts about this. I would be interested to see evidence that you can actually drive prices down by increasing housing supply.
Because when I've been in a position to watch some dramatic housing supply buildouts in a few areas, my observation has been that generally been that the owners price (at least) somewhat above market rates for existing housing -- after all, it's new. Often it's marketed as luxury housing and leased/sold at multiples of the median price.
There's a few places I've observed a decrease in price. It's not where supply is increased, though, it's where demand drops, usually because the economic activity of the region drops off, but sometimes because of conflict/crime or health hazards.
If I'm right, then there are still two options -- build more or don't build more. Each case may have its own merits, but there's not a case that excludes prices going up for SF and the Bay Area.
Short of the current state of economic activity in the area turning out to be an unsustainable bubble or a major disaster, anyway.