The tech community has been receiving a lot of backslash in San Francisco as of late. And Peter Shih’s infamous 10 things I hate about San Francisco post certainly didn’t help. But I think there’s a bigger issue than just rich tech people driving up the price of real estate.

I was reading Quartz this morning and I think they nailed it: 

"But the blame shouldn’t go to the tech companies or their employees moving to San Francisco, however despicable some might be. Blame San Francisco for being pleasant, and its policymakers for being foolish: When a lot of people are moving to your city—San Francisco the city gained 50,000 new residents between 2000 and 2012, including some 25,000 between 2010-2012 and likely more since—home prices are going to increase unless you build a lot more housing."

I’ve talked about this idea before. But I wanted to break it down a bit more precisely.

If San Francisco, the city, gained 25,000 people between 2010-2012, let’s say that the city gained roughly 8,300 people per year. I just divided by 3. However, if you look at the rate of new housing supply, you get a 10-year average of 2,350 housing units a year (from the Quartz article) and an even lower amount according to Atlantic Cities.

Regardless, what you end up with is a pretty simple phenomenon: More people are moving to the city than new housing is being provided and that’s driving up the price of real estate. In fact, San Francisco allegedly only created 269 housing units in 2011! That’s the equivalent of only one fairly typical Toronto condo building going up (and we have hundreds under construction). No wonder there’s upward pressure on prices.

So rather than just blame the tech community for the city’s housing problems, I think there needs to be a broader look at housing policy. If you really want to help affordability, here’s one simple solution: start building.

Two days ago I posted a neat interactive map of carbon footprints across America. It was taken from an Atlantic Cities article. But in the same post, I questioned the (Atlantic Cities) article’s headline and main assertion that increasing population density won’t help to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

This didn’t make sense to me.

Well it turns out that the supporting research data was slightly misinterpreted. According to the Per Square Mile blog, the UC Berkeley study associated with the interactive map reveals a more nuanced relationship between population density and carbon emissions. It turns out that people who live in the middle of nowhere (rural residents) actually have fairly low carbon footprints. Even though they’re reliant on cars, they tend to drive and consume relatively little.

And so initially, as population densities increase, so do carbon footprints. That is until it reaches about 3,000 people per square mile. At that point, carbon emissions start to drop off dramatically—roughly 35% on average from suburb to city.

Below is a graph I found in the comment section of the original Atlantic Cities article that demonstrates this phenomenon. Population density is on the x-axis and carbon emissions are on the y-axis.

So here’s the big takeaway. If you’re looking to optimize around your carbon footprint, you need to pick a side: Either be urban or be rural. But don’t be somewhere in the middle. Don’t be suburban.

The tech community has been receiving a lot of backslash in San Francisco as of late. And Peter Shih’s infamous 10 things I hate about San Francisco post certainly didn’t help. But I think there’s a bigger issue than just rich tech people driving up the price of real estate.

I was reading Quartz this morning and I think they nailed it: 

"But the blame shouldn’t go to the tech companies or their employees moving to San Francisco, however despicable some might be. Blame San Francisco for being pleasant, and its policymakers for being foolish: When a lot of people are moving to your city—San Francisco the city gained 50,000 new residents between 2000 and 2012, including some 25,000 between 2010-2012 and likely more since—home prices are going to increase unless you build a lot more housing."

I’ve talked about this idea before. But I wanted to break it down a bit more precisely.

If San Francisco, the city, gained 25,000 people between 2010-2012, let’s say that the city gained roughly 8,300 people per year. I just divided by 3. However, if you look at the rate of new housing supply, you get a 10-year average of 2,350 housing units a year (from the Quartz article) and an even lower amount according to Atlantic Cities.

Regardless, what you end up with is a pretty simple phenomenon: More people are moving to the city than new housing is being provided and that’s driving up the price of real estate. In fact, San Francisco allegedly only created 269 housing units in 2011! That’s the equivalent of only one fairly typical Toronto condo building going up (and we have hundreds under construction). No wonder there’s upward pressure on prices.

So rather than just blame the tech community for the city’s housing problems, I think there needs to be a broader look at housing policy. If you really want to help affordability, here’s one simple solution: start building.

Two days ago I posted a neat interactive map of carbon footprints across America. It was taken from an Atlantic Cities article. But in the same post, I questioned the (Atlantic Cities) article’s headline and main assertion that increasing population density won’t help to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

This didn’t make sense to me.

Well it turns out that the supporting research data was slightly misinterpreted. According to the Per Square Mile blog, the UC Berkeley study associated with the interactive map reveals a more nuanced relationship between population density and carbon emissions. It turns out that people who live in the middle of nowhere (rural residents) actually have fairly low carbon footprints. Even though they’re reliant on cars, they tend to drive and consume relatively little.

And so initially, as population densities increase, so do carbon footprints. That is until it reaches about 3,000 people per square mile. At that point, carbon emissions start to drop off dramatically—roughly 35% on average from suburb to city.

Below is a graph I found in the comment section of the original Atlantic Cities article that demonstrates this phenomenon. Population density is on the x-axis and carbon emissions are on the y-axis.

So here’s the big takeaway. If you’re looking to optimize around your carbon footprint, you need to pick a side: Either be urban or be rural. But don’t be somewhere in the middle. Don’t be suburban.