And we will call this: filtering. There is truth in the statement that building houses frees up houses. By that same logic though, what about more houses? I know the US has an involuntary muscle...
And we will call this: Trickle down housing filtering.
There is truth in the statement that building houses frees up houses. By that same logic though, what about more houses?
I know the US has an involuntary muscle spasm when you mention tenement housing but it works y'all.
Social housing and/or tenements just house so many folks for cheap that the barrier to entry lowers.
Very little. All tenements are apartments but not all apartments are tenements, if that makes sense. Though some consider it to be a distinction without difference, I do think there's room...
Very little. All tenements are apartments but not all apartments are tenements, if that makes sense. Though some consider it to be a distinction without difference, I do think there's room specifically for lower-income tenement buildings within the US.
Tenements have historically been lower income housing (social housing for example) while apartments have been for middle to high income people. This holds true in the US where that distinction was made when the country was wholesale reformed into building suburban sprawl in the late 19th century. A smattering of racism was involved in those reforms, but I digress.
Lastly, I said tenements because that's the term I'm more familiar with. You could just as easily transpose tenement with apartments and my comment holds true.
I think this would be more true if luxury housing was either quality construction or well-maintained but 90% of new "luxury" housing is not high quality and it isn't regularly maintained so it...
I think this would be more true if luxury housing was either quality construction or well-maintained but 90% of new "luxury" housing is not high quality and it isn't regularly maintained so it does not age well.
But I suppose there isn't much of a historical precedent for my expectation that poorer people would be able to afford old luxury units while the rich move to newer luxury estates. That almost never happens in the past or today. Instead it's almost like there are two or more different housing markets.
Thats all new housing since the 80s imo Once we started using wood pulp products maintainability just went down the drain. Still, with money and effort, you can maintain anything, and I see plenty...
Thats all new housing since the 80s imo
Once we started using wood pulp products maintainability just went down the drain.
Still, with money and effort, you can maintain anything, and I see plenty of new housing dilapidated and torn down and plenty more of those meticulously maintained and its all based on location.
And we will call this:
Trickle down housingfiltering.There is truth in the statement that building houses frees up houses. By that same logic though, what about more houses?
I know the US has an involuntary muscle spasm when you mention tenement housing but it works y'all.
Social housing and/or tenements just house so many folks for cheap that the barrier to entry lowers.
What is the difference between tenement housing and the apartment buildings that exist now?
Very little. All tenements are apartments but not all apartments are tenements, if that makes sense. Though some consider it to be a distinction without difference, I do think there's room specifically for lower-income tenement buildings within the US.
Tenements have historically been lower income housing (social housing for example) while apartments have been for middle to high income people. This holds true in the US where that distinction was made when the country was wholesale reformed into building suburban sprawl in the late 19th century. A smattering of racism was involved in those reforms, but I digress.
Lastly, I said tenements because that's the term I'm more familiar with. You could just as easily transpose tenement with apartments and my comment holds true.
We previously discussed the same Financial Times article here.
I think this would be more true if luxury housing was either quality construction or well-maintained but 90% of new "luxury" housing is not high quality and it isn't regularly maintained so it does not age well.
But I suppose there isn't much of a historical precedent for my expectation that poorer people would be able to afford old luxury units while the rich move to newer luxury estates. That almost never happens in the past or today. Instead it's almost like there are two or more different housing markets.
Thats all new housing since the 80s imo
Once we started using wood pulp products maintainability just went down the drain.
Still, with money and effort, you can maintain anything, and I see plenty of new housing dilapidated and torn down and plenty more of those meticulously maintained and its all based on location.