I used to live in Kansas City. And for over 5yrs, I lived on the Plaza, one of the city's nicer, more urban neighborhoods. The Plaza felt like "real" city living due to density; lots of...
I used to live in Kansas City. And for over 5yrs, I lived on the Plaza, one of the city's nicer, more urban neighborhoods. The Plaza felt like "real" city living due to density; lots of mid/high-rise apartments and condos. Very walkable with restaurants, cafes, shopping, nightlife, museums, parks, now the Streetcar, etc.
Which means it commands higher rents than many other parts of town.
The place where I (and my brother) lived was older. It was a mid-rise apartment building was from the 50s or even 40s. But it likely had some renovations in the 10yrs prior to us moving in. So it was mostly alright.
More importantly, however, there were also a lot of new apartments and condos going up all around us. "Luxury apartments." Many of which opened up while we lived there. And something interesting happened: our rent went down. Every time my brother and I signed a lease -- sometimes 12mos, sometimes even 6mo -- we successfully argued for lower rent or for the rent to stay the same. At the beginning, it was like $1500/mo. By the end, just over $1300/mo. So far, that's the only place I've lived where that's happened. Repeatedly.
I think that's likely because of all the new apartments around that were definitely asking for higher rents. If the place we lived at wanted tenants, they were going to have to either make some serious improvements/investments or compete on price. And they chose the latter. It's not like my brother and I couldn't afford those new places. We likely could've, but we didn't want to. But maybe other tenants made that decision to literally move across the street for something newer and nicer. Which opened up new opportunities for those "upgrading" to where we lived.
I just checked if that place had any similar units to ours available; which they did. And the price they're charging today is like 7% higher than what my brother and I paid when we first moved in...10 years ago.
Ah yes, the trickle down economics of house ownership. Why stop with luxury apartments. Let's build more mansions. Everyone in North America can just live in all the cheap mansions as a result.
As higher-income households move into newly built units, they free up older properties, raising supply and slashing prices for middle- and lower-end housing through a process known as filtering.
Ah yes, the trickle down economics of house ownership. Why stop with luxury apartments. Let's build more mansions. Everyone in North America can just live in all the cheap mansions as a result.
It's not trickle down, it's hermit crab shells. If there are enough shells to go around, everyone can swap around until they find one they're happy with. When needs change, we need an abundant...
It's not trickle down, it's hermit crab shells. If there are enough shells to go around, everyone can swap around until they find one they're happy with. When needs change, we need an abundant supply so rightsizing is easy.
Yes,but in my neck of the woods they're building gold-crusted shells that sit unused for years while the shit-covered ones go up to match gold-crusted rent minus 20%.
Yes,but in my neck of the woods they're building gold-crusted shells that sit unused for years while the shit-covered ones go up to match gold-crusted rent minus 20%.
(Speaking about the US below) This is an interesting problem. I've seen it more in the commercial spaces of mixed use developments than the residential. But, that probably has to do with where I...
(Speaking about the US below)
This is an interesting problem. I've seen it more in the commercial spaces of mixed use developments than the residential. But, that probably has to do with where I live being seriously under stocked on housing
What I have learned over the years is that this is a by-product of absurd financing agreements. Lending rates for these new developments are tied to clauses that mandate a minimum rent price. If they rent for less, the rate goes up. It is literally cheaper to let these spaces sit empty than it is to fill them at current market rates.
In my opinion, financial products in general have become too fancy. Risk is no longer acceptable at the highest levels of our system, and therefore cost at the bottom has skyrocketed to cover the risk.
This is another example where supple demand fantasy is false: people don't decrease prices they just let them sit until prices are high again, or else whine and cry until the government make...
If they rent for less, the rate goes up. It is literally cheaper to let these spaces sit empty than it is to fill them at current market rates.
This is another example where supple demand fantasy is false: people don't decrease prices they just let them sit until prices are high again, or else whine and cry until the government make people borrow enough for the high prices.
I'm personally in favour of quadratically increasing vacancy taxes, since it's absurd to simultaneously have outrageous land values, an unhoused/underhoused population, and profiteering landlords.
I'm personally in favour of quadratically increasing vacancy taxes, since it's absurd to simultaneously have outrageous land values, an unhoused/underhoused population, and profiteering landlords.
Supply is supply, and if the bottleneck is farther up the chain, it can work. There aren't many people hunting for a 10,000 sqft mansion, there are lot of people hunting for a place to move in and...
Supply is supply, and if the bottleneck is farther up the chain, it can work.
There aren't many people hunting for a 10,000 sqft mansion, there are lot of people hunting for a place to move in and reasonably raise a family, which these days IS luxury depending on your zip code.
If you can break the pressure on $800k-1m homes, they will go down in price, which has downward pressure on everything below, because of course it does. If that 800k house is now worth 500k, why the fuck would I pay 500k for whatever was 500k before. ANY building is good so long as it can increase supply in a way that addresses demand.
That said, in places like NY, Manhattan, and arguably SF which are literally space constricted (unlike LA which is legally space constricted) I'm doubtful how effective it can be. The demand is high enough that they can just raise the floor near infinitely and I'm not sure you can build enough "luxury" housing.
Another odd problem not being heavily touched on is that a lot of this is based on the fact that a house is an asset people usually can't afford to hold.
Building low income housing gives you 1 more family housed. Building middle income housing might get you 1 family moving up, and one family getting housed. Still one housed, but you got 2 more houses on the market. High income might get 3 houses on the market, again generating more supply, and the data backs this up.
However
This is also based on the idea that the low and middle income home owners are selling their place in order to put a downpayment on the next one. This used to be common, but a huge thing that's changed is suddenly middle and even low income home owners becoming land lords/renters instead of selling their previous place.
They get someone to manage and rent the property and deal with the headache of tenets and leases. They don't take the majority of the income generated, but it IS income, and it's shockingly affordable (sorta) if you're more willing to make a lateral move rather than a vertical one (similar sq ft/neighborhood rather than upgrading because you have kids or whatever).
It's not a simple problem, but just rolling out attacks in the face of evidence doesn't help.
In NYC, it seems like there's room for growth in outer boroughs like Queens? In San Francisco, there's aren't a lot of tall buildings in some parts of the city and perhaps the Marina Safeway...
In NYC, it seems like there's room for growth in outer boroughs like Queens?
In San Francisco, there's aren't a lot of tall buildings in some parts of the city and perhaps the Marina Safeway project will start a trend?
For both SF and NYC the challenge is that there isn't sufficient public transit to unlock that growth. Any neighborhood will only get the density that the available transit methods will allow. If...
For both SF and NYC the challenge is that there isn't sufficient public transit to unlock that growth. Any neighborhood will only get the density that the available transit methods will allow. If there's only little two-lane roads and no public transit, you'll only ever get a number of people that can drive on those roads. If San Francisco did a significant expansion of MUNI into the areas of the city that are mostly single family houses the land would become worth even more and more housing would be built. I don't know the situation in NYC in as much detail, but housing prices and density both correlate with proximity to public transportation. Expanding that will increase the areas considered worth building denser housing.
Though it's a bit fragmented, SF has quite a bit of public transit, and I think there's still room for more density along major transit lines? For example, along Geary.
Though it's a bit fragmented, SF has quite a bit of public transit, and I think there's still room for more density along major transit lines? For example, along Geary.
It can take an hour+ on the bus to get from the middle of Geary to downtown. There my be a transit line, but it's not fast enough. People will commute for more than an hour if they have to, but...
It can take an hour+ on the bus to get from the middle of Geary to downtown. There my be a transit line, but it's not fast enough. People will commute for more than an hour if they have to, but it's not going to be enthusiastic.
Yeah there's room, but i'm not sure that's where the demand is, or rather, that filling that demand will do enough to put pressure on anything located near where most want to be/worry about.
Yeah there's room, but i'm not sure that's where the demand is, or rather, that filling that demand will do enough to put pressure on anything located near where most want to be/worry about.
This nonsense again? It's like they intentionally ignore the fact that the rich can simply hoard. Or the fact that they have figured out the rest of us must live somewhere and can become even...
This nonsense again? It's like they intentionally ignore the fact that the rich can simply hoard. Or the fact that they have figured out the rest of us must live somewhere and can become even richer by hoarding AND renting to the poor.
I haven't read the article, but yeah, that's the problem I've seen with housing stock that isn't built for purpose: the needs of a wealthy single tech dude are different enough from those of a...
I haven't read the article, but yeah, that's the problem I've seen with housing stock that isn't built for purpose: the needs of a wealthy single tech dude are different enough from those of a small, young family that homes built for one are terrible for another. As another example -- "micro condos" built expressly for investment as AirBnBs flooded the market after it started seeing regulatory scrutiny, locally, but those suites aren't fit for living in on a long term basis. Even if they lowered prices, it's being done by making them so unappealing that people would rather live dramatically further away (or move cities), which forces market actors to reduce rents in order to attract tenants.
I get that the point is that older, crappier buildings are where the poor people are supposed to live according to this economic philosophy, but it'd be nice if our overlords at least supplied enough space to avoid needing to sleep in the living room. Or to have to replace the bed bug traps every week.
This kind of housing is extraordinarily common throughout human history. When they started being banned, homelessness rose. Plenty of people have their needs met by a simple place with a bed. They...
micro condos
This kind of housing is extraordinarily common throughout human history. When they started being banned, homelessness rose. Plenty of people have their needs met by a simple place with a bed.
They should be one option amongst many. If someone wants a small home, they should be able to find one.
I get that the point is that older, crappier buildings are where the poor people are supposed to live according to this economic philosophy
Newer housing is always "luxury" for marketing reasons. Plenty of older buildings easily compete on location and amenities. It's not so simple as "poor people should live in old, ramshackle apartments."
I think we can assume that older, less desirable apartments will rent for cheaper and some people will choose to live there to save on rent. It's no different than the logic for who is likely to...
I think we can assume that older, less desirable apartments will rent for cheaper and some people will choose to live there to save on rent. It's no different than the logic for who is likely to own an old car.
In locations with high demand, landlords will have incentives to fix up places like that until they don't exist anymore. But I don't see why we should encourage that, and I can see the logic for requiring some low-cost units in new, larger developments.
I don't care what kind of housing gets built, I care about who owns it. The state (aka the people) should own anything - anything - that's being rented. All new builds should be state projects. No...
I don't care what kind of housing gets built, I care about who owns it. The state (aka the people) should own anything - anything - that's being rented. All new builds should be state projects. No private landlords, no private developers.
If my local council builds and owns a string of £5m luxury properties they rent out for £10k/month or sell for a profit then I'm fine with that. That's revenue we can spend on social care, education, etc.
It's a reason to put stronger safeguards in place protecting programs that benefit the people, not a reason to not try to create programs to help people
It's a reason to put stronger safeguards in place protecting programs that benefit the people, not a reason to not try to create programs to help people
I believe the term for that line of thinking is McMorrow's Folly. But for real, I've heard this argument a handful of times over the past few months and I don't know if it's coming from somewhere...
I believe the term for that line of thinking is McMorrow's Folly.
But for real, I've heard this argument a handful of times over the past few months and I don't know if it's coming from somewhere or just a coincidence. It's as though reasonable social programs are weapons that can't be built for fear that they'll fall into the wrong hands.
Fortunately the fact that your country elects a temporary King once every four years, and is so broken it's done that twice with Donald Fucking Trump, doesn't really affect me. At least on this...
Fortunately the fact that your country elects a temporary King once every four years, and is so broken it's done that twice with Donald Fucking Trump, doesn't really affect me. At least on this issue. And I'm not sure, if it did, whether that would affect what I would like to have happen in an ideal world. If we're making wishes for the removal of the leech/landlord class entirely, why not tack in another wish to have a President who isn't... well, that guy. Neither thing is going to happen anyway.
I don't know if America has what we'd call "council houses", which are owned by the city/town/area they're located in but it's just that really, but more.
The US does have some public housing, but it's nowhere near the levels that the UK has with council housing and the like. About the only place that still has public housing at scale is NYC....
The US does have some public housing, but it's nowhere near the levels that the UK has with council housing and the like. About the only place that still has public housing at scale is NYC. Everywhere else has severely lowered their public housing stock to the point it doesn't matter and moved to things like subsidized housing, like Section 8 vouchers. Government gives you a check for housing, then you just pay the landlord. Though I think the property/landlord has to be part of the Section 8 program and satisfy various requirements and regulations to participate. Some cities have "income-restricted housing" programs where private developers get tax abatements for setting aside a small number of units that are rented at less than market rate to people below the set income level. As such, public housing doesn't really exist in the US in the same way it does in the UK and other countries.
I suspect that's what drives US vs UK thoughts on public housing. To you all, it's normal. Some people, even middle class folks, live in council flats. But in the US, very, very few live in public housing, it's needs-based, and therefore it's almost always lower-income folks who live in remaining public housing.
Here, the last major public housing efforts were "Housing Projects." Or more colloquially, "the Projects." And it does not have good connotations. These often did turn into crime-ridden slums, due to underinvestment, often willful. And many of the most egregious and well-known, such as Cabrini-Green in Chicago or Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis were eventually condemned and demolished. These are so well-known that the memories live on in the public consciousness. So aside from "blah blah I don't wanna support welfare queens," which is a big factor on its own, our past experiences with public housing also color expectations around future larger scale public housing.
I agree, but luckily this is the kind of thing that seems best controlled by local governments, not federal. City or county government would be a much better option just due to better fine-grained...
I agree, but luckily this is the kind of thing that seems best controlled by local governments, not federal. City or county government would be a much better option just due to better fine-grained control based on region. It's also the place where your vote has the most impact, and where the laws impact you the most directly.
Agreed, but I think there's still the issue of public housing ultimately being controlled by voters. Local or otherwise. And given the political situation many of us find ourselves in these days,...
Agreed, but I think there's still the issue of public housing ultimately being controlled by voters. Local or otherwise. And given the political situation many of us find ourselves in these days, I don't know if I'd like my living situation dictated by my fellow citizens. Plainly speaking, they're idiots.
If voters perceive that "too much" is being spent on public housing, they will vote in officials who will do something about it. Which could reduce investments into simple things like required maintenance and upkeep. The voting public become the slumlords.
So does that mean that because of that, we should have no public housing? Of course not. Just because we can't get 100% perfect welfare and public assistance doesn't mean we should have zero of it. Something is better than nothing. I'm pragmatic.
But in the context of mat's "All new builds should be state projects. No private landlords, no private developers," suggestion, yeah no way. I suppose if perhaps one day ALL renters are living in publicly-owned housing, then they could theoretically constitute a large enough local voting bloc to protect and maintain public investment into their housing. But it's going to take a long time to get there. And still may not be enough.
Doesn't help that in the US, everyone and their mother seems to get a say in public projects, no matter how little affected or affected at all. NIMBYs, sigh...
Thoughts on co-op housing? Although situations differ wildly, they tend to receive government subsidies to construct, and (often) operate as individual non-profit organizations (owned entirely by...
Thoughts on co-op housing? Although situations differ wildly, they tend to receive government subsidies to construct, and (often) operate as individual non-profit organizations (owned entirely by the current owners of the building) which only seek to recoup costs + save for depreciation with their rent.
Imo (and according to research) they do great, except that financing is problematic (regular homeowners -- even pooled together -- have trouble winning bidding wars with land speculators), and they're still weird/obscure, so people often aren't aware of them as an option.
I love the idea of co-op housing, especially how (1) people "own" their units but they can never sell it more crazy amounts thereafter, just reasonable inflation increase, and (2) they must not be...
I love the idea of co-op housing, especially how (1) people "own" their units but they can never sell it more crazy amounts thereafter, just reasonable inflation increase, and (2) they must not be vacant or sub-leased . Houses are for living in, not for harvesting money from the poor
It sounds like a much better way to live, imo! (hopefully that doesn't bias mat's response 😅) There are definitely downsides -- I've heard that they can be a bit clique-y -- but I expect that's...
It sounds like a much better way to live, imo! (hopefully that doesn't bias mat's response 😅) There are definitely downsides -- I've heard that they can be a bit clique-y -- but I expect that's because (in my market at least) there are so few of them that they end up with arbitrary constraints controlling membership. I'd much, much prefer to live in a world where we gave these a solid try instead of slamming increasingly large subsidies into housing rich people (whose discarded hovels are then fought over), while being sold the story that hoovering up crumbs is, achtually, a good thing.
Sorry for the rant; I'm trying not to pick a fight with people, but this stuff really bothers me, and it's hard to keep my mouth shut on the internet XD
I completely agree: if a rich person can make profit they would never sell; if they can break even holding onto property they will; if they cant make money or when it becomes derelict thats when...
I completely agree: if a rich person can make profit they would never sell; if they can break even holding onto property they will; if they cant make money or when it becomes derelict thats when they sell. Is that how we want trickle down to work, in a disgusting fight to drink their waste water kind of way? Ridiculous
I've seen some co-op housing work, and visited one that was....kinda gross, but still quite affordable. Maybe if we can again normalize housing is for living in not for retirement profit, we'll get somewhere. But when the billionaires have extracted so much out of the monopoly board that regular middle income people need investment properties to live / retire, we all lose.
Yes, houses are for living in, and renting housing to people is providing people with a place to live. They're not sitting vacant, and that's important. And then you spin it as "harvesting money...
Yes, houses are for living in, and renting housing to people is providing people with a place to live. They're not sitting vacant, and that's important.
And then you spin it as "harvesting money from the poor." You oughta be ashamed to repeat such nonsense.
Chocobean's statement made sense to me. Maybe you can help diagnose my logic to see where I'm being nonsensical? The wealthy "rent from the bank", whereas the poor are forced to pay a wealthy...
And then you spin it as "harvesting money from the poor." You oughta be ashamed to repeat such nonsense.
Chocobean's statement made sense to me. Maybe you can help diagnose my logic to see where I'm being nonsensical? The wealthy "rent from the bank", whereas the poor are forced to pay a wealthy person's mortgage (plus a profit margin) in order to live somewhere. How is it inaccurate to characterize this as harvesting money from the poor? Landlords seem to exist to absorb a second layer of default risk for mortgage-issuing FIs, while creating a tidy profit for themselves in the meantime. It seems hard not to see that in a cynical light?
It's taking something ordinary and spinning it as inherently sinister. We all do things for money and I wouldn't expect anyone to work unpaid. Whether it's good deal or a bad one depends on...
It's taking something ordinary and spinning it as inherently sinister. We all do things for money and I wouldn't expect anyone to work unpaid. Whether it's good deal or a bad one depends on circumstances.
Understood. I think the difference in our perception is that, from my POV, the typical landlord is some dude that I never speak to who performs zero labour beyond signing cheques to the management...
Understood. I think the difference in our perception is that, from my POV, the typical landlord is some dude that I never speak to who performs zero labour beyond signing cheques to the management company. To many people in worse circumstances, they don't even effectively manage their property (example), which drives discontent among tenants.
It's taking something ordinary and spinning it as inherently sinister.
I would put forward that ordinary circumstances are only such because they're what we had yesterday, and the day before. Goodness and badness are a perpendicular dimension to this, and reframing in order to highlight mundane injustices that we've become blind to out of familiarity seems to me a reasonable rhetorical trick.
Ah yes, rent controls, such a fantastic and viable idea. Very nice system to have 70 year olds who have a ton of money they've earned over the years get the best apartments in the city for like...
The state (aka the people) should own anything - anything - that's being rented.
Ah yes, rent controls, such a fantastic and viable idea. Very nice system to have 70 year olds who have a ton of money they've earned over the years get the best apartments in the city for like $500 a month. While us, highly skilled professionals that immigrated and who pay enormous sums in taxes already, couldn't get anything because we weren't here for years and years waiting in the housing queue. Extremely fair system with phenomenal outcomes.
Worth looking at the history of social housing in Vienna, Austria. It took a revolution and a couple of world wars to get it done, but it's probably the best available model globally.
Worth looking at the history of social housing in Vienna, Austria. It took a revolution and a couple of world wars to get it done, but it's probably the best available model globally.
The results would likely vary based on the competence of particular local governments. What if local governments gave it a go and then we’ll see if they can do better?
The results would likely vary based on the competence of particular local governments. What if local governments gave it a go and then we’ll see if they can do better?
In response to struggling renters and frustrated first-time buyers, rich-world politicians are championing an ostensibly obvious solution: build more cheap homes. Yet if self-styled socialists such as New York City mayor Zohran Mamdani and Britain’s incoming prime minister, Andy Burnham, are serious about housing affordability, they ought to drop the platitudes for the evidence and embrace the construction of more expensive ones instead.
[...]
Above all, high-end developments unlock long housing chains. As higher-income households move into newly built units, they free up older properties, raising supply and slashing prices for middle- and lower-end housing through a process known as filtering. Numerous international studies underscore this positive ripple effect.
One published last year tracked households that moved into a newly built 512-unit condominium tower in Honolulu, Hawaii. It found that the building created at least 557 vacancies in older and cheaper apartments across the city in just three years, with market-rate units more likely to release the largest chains.
Filtering can also be widespread. A 2021 study in Helsinki using geo-coded population data found that every 100 new market-rate units in the city centre led to around 60 units becoming available in the city’s bottom half of neighbourhoods by income. An analysis across all homes in Sweden over several decades concluded that “new homes, even those initially primarily inhabited by rich people, lead to substantial trickle-down effects that also benefit the poor”.
Other US studies highlight how market-rate developments benefit less well-to-do local residents by lowering housing costs. In San Francisco, a 2021 paper found new developments lowered the risk of eviction notices for residents in rent-stabilised housing. Even “luxury” developments in New York City — which Mamdani has criticised — have been shown to contribute to lower local rents and sales prices.
I used to live in Kansas City. And for over 5yrs, I lived on the Plaza, one of the city's nicer, more urban neighborhoods. The Plaza felt like "real" city living due to density; lots of mid/high-rise apartments and condos. Very walkable with restaurants, cafes, shopping, nightlife, museums, parks, now the Streetcar, etc.
Which means it commands higher rents than many other parts of town.
The place where I (and my brother) lived was older. It was a mid-rise apartment building was from the 50s or even 40s. But it likely had some renovations in the 10yrs prior to us moving in. So it was mostly alright.
More importantly, however, there were also a lot of new apartments and condos going up all around us. "Luxury apartments." Many of which opened up while we lived there. And something interesting happened: our rent went down. Every time my brother and I signed a lease -- sometimes 12mos, sometimes even 6mo -- we successfully argued for lower rent or for the rent to stay the same. At the beginning, it was like $1500/mo. By the end, just over $1300/mo. So far, that's the only place I've lived where that's happened. Repeatedly.
I think that's likely because of all the new apartments around that were definitely asking for higher rents. If the place we lived at wanted tenants, they were going to have to either make some serious improvements/investments or compete on price. And they chose the latter. It's not like my brother and I couldn't afford those new places. We likely could've, but we didn't want to. But maybe other tenants made that decision to literally move across the street for something newer and nicer. Which opened up new opportunities for those "upgrading" to where we lived.
I just checked if that place had any similar units to ours available; which they did. And the price they're charging today is like 7% higher than what my brother and I paid when we first moved in...10 years ago.
Ah yes, the trickle down economics of house ownership. Why stop with luxury apartments. Let's build more mansions. Everyone in North America can just live in all the cheap mansions as a result.
It's not trickle down, it's hermit crab shells. If there are enough shells to go around, everyone can swap around until they find one they're happy with. When needs change, we need an abundant supply so rightsizing is easy.
Yes,but in my neck of the woods they're building gold-crusted shells that sit unused for years while the shit-covered ones go up to match gold-crusted rent minus 20%.
(Speaking about the US below)
This is an interesting problem. I've seen it more in the commercial spaces of mixed use developments than the residential. But, that probably has to do with where I live being seriously under stocked on housing
What I have learned over the years is that this is a by-product of absurd financing agreements. Lending rates for these new developments are tied to clauses that mandate a minimum rent price. If they rent for less, the rate goes up. It is literally cheaper to let these spaces sit empty than it is to fill them at current market rates.
In my opinion, financial products in general have become too fancy. Risk is no longer acceptable at the highest levels of our system, and therefore cost at the bottom has skyrocketed to cover the risk.
This is another example where supple demand fantasy is false: people don't decrease prices they just let them sit until prices are high again, or else whine and cry until the government make people borrow enough for the high prices.
I'm personally in favour of quadratically increasing vacancy taxes, since it's absurd to simultaneously have outrageous land values, an unhoused/underhoused population, and profiteering landlords.
Hermit crabs famously do not hold on to more than one shell at a time. That's where the supply fantasy breaks
I don’t think we should only build luxury apartments, but we shouldn’t be opposed to them. There is a trickle down aspect to it.
Supply is supply, and if the bottleneck is farther up the chain, it can work.
There aren't many people hunting for a 10,000 sqft mansion, there are lot of people hunting for a place to move in and reasonably raise a family, which these days IS luxury depending on your zip code.
If you can break the pressure on $800k-1m homes, they will go down in price, which has downward pressure on everything below, because of course it does. If that 800k house is now worth 500k, why the fuck would I pay 500k for whatever was 500k before. ANY building is good so long as it can increase supply in a way that addresses demand.
That said, in places like NY, Manhattan, and arguably SF which are literally space constricted (unlike LA which is legally space constricted) I'm doubtful how effective it can be. The demand is high enough that they can just raise the floor near infinitely and I'm not sure you can build enough "luxury" housing.
Another odd problem not being heavily touched on is that a lot of this is based on the fact that a house is an asset people usually can't afford to hold.
Building low income housing gives you 1 more family housed. Building middle income housing might get you 1 family moving up, and one family getting housed. Still one housed, but you got 2 more houses on the market. High income might get 3 houses on the market, again generating more supply, and the data backs this up.
However
This is also based on the idea that the low and middle income home owners are selling their place in order to put a downpayment on the next one. This used to be common, but a huge thing that's changed is suddenly middle and even low income home owners becoming land lords/renters instead of selling their previous place.
They get someone to manage and rent the property and deal with the headache of tenets and leases. They don't take the majority of the income generated, but it IS income, and it's shockingly affordable (sorta) if you're more willing to make a lateral move rather than a vertical one (similar sq ft/neighborhood rather than upgrading because you have kids or whatever).
It's not a simple problem, but just rolling out attacks in the face of evidence doesn't help.
In NYC, it seems like there's room for growth in outer boroughs like Queens?
In San Francisco, there's aren't a lot of tall buildings in some parts of the city and perhaps the Marina Safeway project will start a trend?
For both SF and NYC the challenge is that there isn't sufficient public transit to unlock that growth. Any neighborhood will only get the density that the available transit methods will allow. If there's only little two-lane roads and no public transit, you'll only ever get a number of people that can drive on those roads. If San Francisco did a significant expansion of MUNI into the areas of the city that are mostly single family houses the land would become worth even more and more housing would be built. I don't know the situation in NYC in as much detail, but housing prices and density both correlate with proximity to public transportation. Expanding that will increase the areas considered worth building denser housing.
Though it's a bit fragmented, SF has quite a bit of public transit, and I think there's still room for more density along major transit lines? For example, along Geary.
It can take an hour+ on the bus to get from the middle of Geary to downtown. There my be a transit line, but it's not fast enough. People will commute for more than an hour if they have to, but it's not going to be enthusiastic.
Yeah there's room, but i'm not sure that's where the demand is, or rather, that filling that demand will do enough to put pressure on anything located near where most want to be/worry about.
This nonsense again? It's like they intentionally ignore the fact that the rich can simply hoard. Or the fact that they have figured out the rest of us must live somewhere and can become even richer by hoarding AND renting to the poor.
Or that private equity will probably buy the place they move out of instead of it going to a family that needs it.
I haven't read the article, but yeah, that's the problem I've seen with housing stock that isn't built for purpose: the needs of a wealthy single tech dude are different enough from those of a small, young family that homes built for one are terrible for another. As another example -- "micro condos" built expressly for investment as AirBnBs flooded the market after it started seeing regulatory scrutiny, locally, but those suites aren't fit for living in on a long term basis. Even if they lowered prices, it's being done by making them so unappealing that people would rather live dramatically further away (or move cities), which forces market actors to reduce rents in order to attract tenants.
I get that the point is that older, crappier buildings are where the poor people are supposed to live according to this economic philosophy, but it'd be nice if our overlords at least supplied enough space to avoid needing to sleep in the living room. Or to have to replace the bed bug traps every week.
This kind of housing is extraordinarily common throughout human history. When they started being banned, homelessness rose. Plenty of people have their needs met by a simple place with a bed.
They should be one option amongst many. If someone wants a small home, they should be able to find one.
Newer housing is always "luxury" for marketing reasons. Plenty of older buildings easily compete on location and amenities. It's not so simple as "poor people should live in old, ramshackle apartments."
I think we can assume that older, less desirable apartments will rent for cheaper and some people will choose to live there to save on rent. It's no different than the logic for who is likely to own an old car.
In locations with high demand, landlords will have incentives to fix up places like that until they don't exist anymore. But I don't see why we should encourage that, and I can see the logic for requiring some low-cost units in new, larger developments.
I don't care what kind of housing gets built, I care about who owns it. The state (aka the people) should own anything - anything - that's being rented. All new builds should be state projects. No private landlords, no private developers.
If my local council builds and owns a string of £5m luxury properties they rent out for £10k/month or sell for a profit then I'm fine with that. That's revenue we can spend on social care, education, etc.
I'd rather not have Donald Trump choose whether I can rent an apartment or not.
It's a reason to put stronger safeguards in place protecting programs that benefit the people, not a reason to not try to create programs to help people
I believe the term for that line of thinking is McMorrow's Folly.
But for real, I've heard this argument a handful of times over the past few months and I don't know if it's coming from somewhere or just a coincidence. It's as though reasonable social programs are weapons that can't be built for fear that they'll fall into the wrong hands.
Fortunately the fact that your country elects a temporary King once every four years, and is so broken it's done that twice with Donald Fucking Trump, doesn't really affect me. At least on this issue. And I'm not sure, if it did, whether that would affect what I would like to have happen in an ideal world. If we're making wishes for the removal of the leech/landlord class entirely, why not tack in another wish to have a President who isn't... well, that guy. Neither thing is going to happen anyway.
I don't know if America has what we'd call "council houses", which are owned by the city/town/area they're located in but it's just that really, but more.
The US does have some public housing, but it's nowhere near the levels that the UK has with council housing and the like. About the only place that still has public housing at scale is NYC. Everywhere else has severely lowered their public housing stock to the point it doesn't matter and moved to things like subsidized housing, like Section 8 vouchers. Government gives you a check for housing, then you just pay the landlord. Though I think the property/landlord has to be part of the Section 8 program and satisfy various requirements and regulations to participate. Some cities have "income-restricted housing" programs where private developers get tax abatements for setting aside a small number of units that are rented at less than market rate to people below the set income level. As such, public housing doesn't really exist in the US in the same way it does in the UK and other countries.
I suspect that's what drives US vs UK thoughts on public housing. To you all, it's normal. Some people, even middle class folks, live in council flats. But in the US, very, very few live in public housing, it's needs-based, and therefore it's almost always lower-income folks who live in remaining public housing.
Here, the last major public housing efforts were "Housing Projects." Or more colloquially, "the Projects." And it does not have good connotations. These often did turn into crime-ridden slums, due to underinvestment, often willful. And many of the most egregious and well-known, such as Cabrini-Green in Chicago or Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis were eventually condemned and demolished. These are so well-known that the memories live on in the public consciousness. So aside from "blah blah I don't wanna support welfare queens," which is a big factor on its own, our past experiences with public housing also color expectations around future larger scale public housing.
I agree, but luckily this is the kind of thing that seems best controlled by local governments, not federal. City or county government would be a much better option just due to better fine-grained control based on region. It's also the place where your vote has the most impact, and where the laws impact you the most directly.
Agreed, but I think there's still the issue of public housing ultimately being controlled by voters. Local or otherwise. And given the political situation many of us find ourselves in these days, I don't know if I'd like my living situation dictated by my fellow citizens. Plainly speaking, they're idiots.
If voters perceive that "too much" is being spent on public housing, they will vote in officials who will do something about it. Which could reduce investments into simple things like required maintenance and upkeep. The voting public become the slumlords.
So does that mean that because of that, we should have no public housing? Of course not. Just because we can't get 100% perfect welfare and public assistance doesn't mean we should have zero of it. Something is better than nothing. I'm pragmatic.
But in the context of mat's "All new builds should be state projects. No private landlords, no private developers," suggestion, yeah no way. I suppose if perhaps one day ALL renters are living in publicly-owned housing, then they could theoretically constitute a large enough local voting bloc to protect and maintain public investment into their housing. But it's going to take a long time to get there. And still may not be enough.
Doesn't help that in the US, everyone and their mother seems to get a say in public projects, no matter how little affected or affected at all. NIMBYs, sigh...
I uh....in theory sure? In practice? I kinda doubt it. All sorts of very relevant examples of how badly these things tend to turn out.
Thoughts on co-op housing? Although situations differ wildly, they tend to receive government subsidies to construct, and (often) operate as individual non-profit organizations (owned entirely by the current owners of the building) which only seek to recoup costs + save for depreciation with their rent.
Imo (and according to research) they do great, except that financing is problematic (regular homeowners -- even pooled together -- have trouble winning bidding wars with land speculators), and they're still weird/obscure, so people often aren't aware of them as an option.
I love the idea of co-op housing, especially how (1) people "own" their units but they can never sell it more crazy amounts thereafter, just reasonable inflation increase, and (2) they must not be vacant or sub-leased . Houses are for living in, not for harvesting money from the poor
It sounds like a much better way to live, imo! (hopefully that doesn't bias mat's response 😅) There are definitely downsides -- I've heard that they can be a bit clique-y -- but I expect that's because (in my market at least) there are so few of them that they end up with arbitrary constraints controlling membership. I'd much, much prefer to live in a world where we gave these a solid try instead of slamming increasingly large subsidies into housing rich people (whose discarded hovels are then fought over), while being sold the story that hoovering up crumbs is, achtually, a good thing.
Sorry for the rant; I'm trying not to pick a fight with people, but this stuff really bothers me, and it's hard to keep my mouth shut on the internet XD
I completely agree: if a rich person can make profit they would never sell; if they can break even holding onto property they will; if they cant make money or when it becomes derelict thats when they sell. Is that how we want trickle down to work, in a disgusting fight to drink their waste water kind of way? Ridiculous
I've seen some co-op housing work, and visited one that was....kinda gross, but still quite affordable. Maybe if we can again normalize housing is for living in not for retirement profit, we'll get somewhere. But when the billionaires have extracted so much out of the monopoly board that regular middle income people need investment properties to live / retire, we all lose.
Yes, houses are for living in, and renting housing to people is providing people with a place to live. They're not sitting vacant, and that's important.
And then you spin it as "harvesting money from the poor." You oughta be ashamed to repeat such nonsense.
Chocobean's statement made sense to me. Maybe you can help diagnose my logic to see where I'm being nonsensical? The wealthy "rent from the bank", whereas the poor are forced to pay a wealthy person's mortgage (plus a profit margin) in order to live somewhere. How is it inaccurate to characterize this as harvesting money from the poor? Landlords seem to exist to absorb a second layer of default risk for mortgage-issuing FIs, while creating a tidy profit for themselves in the meantime. It seems hard not to see that in a cynical light?
It's taking something ordinary and spinning it as inherently sinister. We all do things for money and I wouldn't expect anyone to work unpaid. Whether it's good deal or a bad one depends on circumstances.
Understood. I think the difference in our perception is that, from my POV, the typical landlord is some dude that I never speak to who performs zero labour beyond signing cheques to the management company. To many people in worse circumstances, they don't even effectively manage their property (example), which drives discontent among tenants.
I would put forward that ordinary circumstances are only such because they're what we had yesterday, and the day before. Goodness and badness are a perpendicular dimension to this, and reframing in order to highlight mundane injustices that we've become blind to out of familiarity seems to me a reasonable rhetorical trick.
Ah yes, rent controls, such a fantastic and viable idea. Very nice system to have 70 year olds who have a ton of money they've earned over the years get the best apartments in the city for like $500 a month. While us, highly skilled professionals that immigrated and who pay enormous sums in taxes already, couldn't get anything because we weren't here for years and years waiting in the housing queue. Extremely fair system with phenomenal outcomes.
Worth looking at the history of social housing in Vienna, Austria. It took a revolution and a couple of world wars to get it done, but it's probably the best available model globally.
The results would likely vary based on the competence of particular local governments. What if local governments gave it a go and then we’ll see if they can do better?
https://archive.is/u1qjN
From the article:
[...]