According to this annual survey by Henley & Partners (first chart from Bloomberg), these are the top 10 wealthiest cities in the world when you count the number of high-net-worth individuals (i.e. people with investable wealth greater than US$1 million):

However, if you instead count billionaires, the top city flips from New York City to the Bay Area (which includes San Francisco and all of Silicon Valley). This isn't all that surprising.

Also not surprising is the precipitous decline in the number of HNWIs residing in Hong Kong. From 2012 to 2022, the number declined by 27%. That said, a bunch of other cities fared even worse. The city that lost the most millionaires over this same decade was Moscow. It declined by 44%.

For those of you wondering about Toronto, we placed 12th, just after Chicago, with 105,200 millionaires, 193 centi-millionaires, and 18 billionaires:

The next city in Canada on the list is Vancouver, and following that is Montreal:

It is interesting to see how much further behind Montreal places with these metrics given that it is an urban region with about 1.6x the population of that of Vancouver's.

Also interesting -- given its size and global importance -- is Paris (18th when it comes to HNWIs):

However, when it comes to seasonal draw, Paris is second only to Miami, which appears to be the undisputed global destination for rich people in the winter. Paris has 126 centi-millionaire residents, but during its peak holiday month (presumably summer), this number is believed to increase to over 300:

Finally, looking at Park City, Utah, it has 8 permanent centi-millionaires and this number is thought to increase to over 100 during the winter snowboarding season. And to be clear, this transient population figure only includes people who own a second home there. It does not include rich people paying US$3,700 per night to stay at Deer Valley. That's pretty good for a small town of only 8,500 permanent residents.

To check out the full list of 97 cities, click here.

On July 1 of this year, a new California bill, called the "Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022", will go into effect. And the goal of this legislation is to significantly increase the supply of new homes in the state by allowing multi-family construction on lands that are currently zoned for commercial uses.

On some level, it is of course curious that there even needs to be this bill. Because what we are effectively saying is, "hey, we should allow people to build a mix of uses on our main streets and with high enough densities that we might actually be able to support transit." Why was this not always the case? (Rhetorical question.)

In the words of architect and planner Peter Calthorpe, who was recently interviewed here in ArchDaily, this is a "landmark piece of legislation" that has "received very little attention." So that's why we're talking about it today.

Calthorpe was actively involved in crafting this legislation, and his work apparently started with different scenario land-use models. The first experiment looked at a 43-mile stretch of El Camino running from San Francisco to San Jose (pictured below). And what they found was that this one strip alone could accommodate somewhere around 250,000 new infill homes.

To put this into context, the state of California is currently building about 140,000 new homes each year, through a roughly equal (1:1) split of multi-family and low-rise single-family. Already this represents a shift, as supply used to be slanted (3:1) toward low-rise. (I don't know when exactly this was the case, but Calthorpe mentions the figure in his interview.)

Moving on from El Camino, Calthorpe and his team then ran a similar exercise for the five-county inner Bay area. And here they found that some 700 miles of commercial land could produce up to 1.3 million multi-family homes at "reasonable densities." This was then expanded to the entire state of California and the number increased to 10 million new homes.

Of course, as we have talked about before on this blog, not all of this land might actually be feasible for development. Sometimes the math doesn't work even at a zero land cost; you might need a negative land cost in order to pencil a new development. Meaning, you might need to be paid, perhaps through some sort of subsidy.

So what Calthorpe and the team did was use MapCraft to quickly run development feasibilities on the above sites. They had it run 6 different pro formas using local rents, construction costs, city fees, and so on. And what they determined was that this 10 million number drops down to 2 million when you apply the economic realities of the world.

As a disclaimer, I'm not at all familiar with MapCraft. But I'm going to take this number at face value and say that this is still a lot of new homes. And this is what people are hoping for come July 1 of this year.

Image: HDR / Peter Calthorpe

The headline sounds pretty promising: San Francisco is on the verge of abolishing single-family zoning, and will soon allow 4-plexes across the city and up to 6 units on corner lots. It is also clear recognition that, "hey, we have a housing problem and should probably figure out a way to increase overall supply."

Unfortunately, when you look at the policy details, you'll see that this is likely to be more symbolic than effective. What is being proposed is to take the 40% of San Francisco's land area that is zoned exclusively for single-family houses and upzone it to allow for duplexes on an as-of-right basis.

And then, if you happen to have owned the property for at least 5 years -- or inherited it from a family member that did -- you can apply for a special "density exception" from the city. This would allow you to build 6 units on corner lots and 4 units on all remaining mid-block lots.

But here's the other thing: if you are granted this density exception, the additional units (beyond your as-of-right two) will be subject to rent control. So the important question here is about whether or not anyone will end up building more than luxury duplexes and, if they do, will there be enough scale to produce a meaningful impact.

I'm not familiar with development cost structures in San Francisco and I'm not sure if there will be any incentives/subsidies for delivering these additional rent controlled units, but the above feels like far too many barriers if the goal is more housing.

But it remains a step in the right direction. Symbolism certainly has its merits.

For other posts on infill housing, click here.

Photo by Braden Collum on Unsplash