indeed that's my comment too - when you say "as for the suburbs" and then tell us you're not talking about the types of places that we call suburbs you're speaking in unhelpful code.

I recognize that in other countries they use the term suburb differently, e.g. SoHo or Chelsea are suburbd to a Londoner (c.f. "City of London"), but to a New Yorker they'd be the city.

As for the essential problem of not enough affordable housing - the other solution would be fewer people, right?

"Rocket surgery"?

I eventually understood "Permits 1990-2013 per 1,000 housing units in 1990" but egad

@5 yeah yeah, needlessly-complex presentation of data is needlessly-complex.

The relationship between housing prices and new construction is not that simple—'supply and demand' barely tells half the story.

@6 Not needlessly. They had to pick a year in that range for number of housing units. But yeah, not exactly a USA Today graphic. For those that haven't figured it out yet: as you go down in number of permits you go down in affordability.

@7 So tell us the other half. You can't just come in and tell us to ignore basic economics and not say why.

@1 those aren't suburbs. Wake up and smell 2014.

@9 Ok ok, fair point, my explanation will probably be just as oversimplified too, but I’ll take a shot from my little bubble.

Take San Francisco. Two-and-half years ago, housing demand was high, supply was high, but prices were as low as they’d been in 15 years. Interest rates were better than ever, but banks just weren’t loaning money. The place I bought had been empty for 8 months, no offers. With no one leaving their rentals, property values fell, while rents still slowly rose. Supply up, demand up, but home prices down.

Fast forward to now: supply and demand still tells part of the story, banks are loosening their iron grip on their money, but no amount of new construction will satiate current demand, and new construction comes in at the highest price point (the BMR program and public housing can only help a select few). And with new construction comes high comps, with high comps comes higher property values, higher rental prices, etc. You’re not just filling demand, you’re broadening demand.

When the jobs dry up, or the City becomes a place less people want to live, prices will level off, but probably never reach a point of affordability for most. It’s tiny here, but other cities like Toyko and Hong Kong that have built to the sky won’t be affordable in my lifetime—it’s not just something as tangible as jobs (still only a small percentage of San Franciscans work in tech), but there’s a perception of opportunity in these places that makes people want to move there. Supply and demand still describes the issue at the most basic level, but when supply can’t solve the issue, we need to consider other things.

And yet there are more vacant homes than homeless people. The problem is not lack of supply but allocation of resources

it makes sense for politicians to allow housing to get more dense on a city's outskirts and immediate burbs too, imo. why not employ all of Latin America and free up more money for goods besides rent?

How about a human commons too?