Yeah, it's a funny way to put it. The nationwide average might as well be rounded to "no change." Nobody lives in a nationwide average, though. People live in specific places. Apparently rents for...
Yeah, it's a funny way to put it. The nationwide average might as well be rounded to "no change."
Nobody lives in a nationwide average, though. People live in specific places. Apparently rents for some apartments in some cities decreased.
And they're planning on pulling back on building more housing anywhere the cost of housing decreased use to increased supply. In general a large corporation would like to make more money rather...
And they're planning on pulling back on building more housing anywhere the cost of housing decreased use to increased supply. In general a large corporation would like to make more money rather than less. Since they could spend their money to build a new apartment building anywhere in the nation or anywhere in the world, why would they put the time and attention into somewhere where the margins are slightly worse? Without any assumption of ill will on their part, market consolidation (in part due to the pure technical expertise needed for larger construction products) has led a few corporations to make construction choices on a scale very detached from the lives of the people who are going to live in their structures. What skin off their nose if housing affordability keeps getting worse? They can build wherever they want, and choose whatever market is most profitable this year. An optimal choice for them, but I can't help but feel like the systems of the world are optimizing for some set of effects that are best only for a group of people who are unanchored to any location. Anyone with ties to a given area will be left behind when the uncaring systems optimize for something that is of no local use.
This isn't new. When the corporations were smaller and only spanned a single county or state, some areas had the economic demand to spur more construction, and others didn't. Smaller cities faded or were absorbed by their larger neighbors. Rural areas got only enough development to support their agricultural or resource extraction efforts. It's just now zoomed out even further. Many states are no longer larger than the corporations they theoretically manage. Many countries, too. So we're left in a position where whatever subsidies a county or state might provide to a major homebuilder has to beat out potential sheer profit anywhere in the nation, maybe anywhere in the world. Can it happen? Maybe. Will it be what's good for the locals? Absolutely not.
I suspect they built thousands of luxury apartments in some sunbelt cities because the land was there, they were allowed to, and the demand was there. It's harder to build in some cities than others.
I suspect they built thousands of luxury apartments in some sunbelt cities because the land was there, they were allowed to, and the demand was there. It's harder to build in some cities than others.
The US’s average rental rate fell 0.18 percent in November, the largest monthly drop in more than 15 years, according to real estate research firm CoStar. Driving that decline: lower rents in big cities like Austin, Denver and Phoenix, as well as vacation destinations like Naples, Florida; Asheville, North Carolina; and Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
New building openings are bringing rents down as wealthy tenants trade up, forcing landlords to drop prices for older apartments. Rents for older units have fallen as much as 11%, and some are now on offer at rates as low as homes that are usually designated as “affordable” and come with restrictions including rent control and rent stabilization.
[...]
The cities where older buildings’ rents fell the most saw new apartments built at a much higher rate than the national average. In the cities that added new apartments at lower rates — below the national average — rents barely budged.
[...]
The supply of luxury buildings over the past couple of years has driven down rents and helped ease some of the affordability issues in those cities even though the development of affordable housing was comparatively slow, amounting to hundreds rather than thousands of new units built per quarter.
[...]
To be sure, relying on luxury developments to address the housing crisis isn’t a long-term solution — with developers already pulling back on plans for new buildings in places where rents have fallen the most. The number of new apartments opening for rent across the country is expected to drop by half next year from its mid-2024 peak.
Buying products from official outlets to then sell them later for higher profits is called scalping. Economically, sure. You make money via a legal process. Morally? different story.
Buying products from official outlets to then sell them later for higher profits is called scalping. Economically, sure. You make money via a legal process. Morally? different story.
Let's say your rent is $1,500. 0.18% is $2.70. And that's the largest drop in 15 years? I think I found the problem.
Yeah, it's a funny way to put it. The nationwide average might as well be rounded to "no change."
Nobody lives in a nationwide average, though. People live in specific places. Apparently rents for some apartments in some cities decreased.
And they're planning on pulling back on building more housing anywhere the cost of housing decreased use to increased supply. In general a large corporation would like to make more money rather than less. Since they could spend their money to build a new apartment building anywhere in the nation or anywhere in the world, why would they put the time and attention into somewhere where the margins are slightly worse? Without any assumption of ill will on their part, market consolidation (in part due to the pure technical expertise needed for larger construction products) has led a few corporations to make construction choices on a scale very detached from the lives of the people who are going to live in their structures. What skin off their nose if housing affordability keeps getting worse? They can build wherever they want, and choose whatever market is most profitable this year. An optimal choice for them, but I can't help but feel like the systems of the world are optimizing for some set of effects that are best only for a group of people who are unanchored to any location. Anyone with ties to a given area will be left behind when the uncaring systems optimize for something that is of no local use.
This isn't new. When the corporations were smaller and only spanned a single county or state, some areas had the economic demand to spur more construction, and others didn't. Smaller cities faded or were absorbed by their larger neighbors. Rural areas got only enough development to support their agricultural or resource extraction efforts. It's just now zoomed out even further. Many states are no longer larger than the corporations they theoretically manage. Many countries, too. So we're left in a position where whatever subsidies a county or state might provide to a major homebuilder has to beat out potential sheer profit anywhere in the nation, maybe anywhere in the world. Can it happen? Maybe. Will it be what's good for the locals? Absolutely not.
I suspect they built thousands of luxury apartments in some sunbelt cities because the land was there, they were allowed to, and the demand was there. It's harder to build in some cities than others.
Yeah the whole thing where cities were competing for Amazon warehouses like ten years ago was wild.
https://archive.is/N1ArH
[...]
[...]
[...]
Buying products from official outlets to then sell them later for higher profits is called scalping. Economically, sure. You make money via a legal process. Morally? different story.