Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

derekthompson.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

811–817 of 817 posts

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#811

Post by davidw »

antifa wrote: post #792
LargeWu wrote: post #640

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's dogmatic among the left that "market based solutions are bad". And because Abundance embraces market solutions, it must therefore be bad too. Basically, all the arguments I've seen against Abundance tend either towards the ideological, or irrelevant. I tend to see very little empirical arguments.

No, the problem is when the markets are freer than the people.

The housing market is anything but a free market. In a free market, a bunch of NIMBYs like these would not have been able to stop homes from being built:

https://bendyimby.com/2024/04/16/the-hearing-and-the-housing...

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#812

Post by shazbotter »

Schiendelman wrote: post #809
shazbotter wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seattle upzoned huge chunks of the city, allowed ADUs (now two adus are permitted on all lots), and removed single family zoning. All within the past five years. Last year, Seattle built 20% more houses than the highest of any of the previous ten years. (~13k units) And this year we're 11% above last year, so far. What about that is not "actually encouraging more building"? I'd say your data might need revising.

It's honestly not that much. I know it looks good when comparing to recent years, but it doesn't look as good when you look at regional numbers (the city limits don't matter much in a housing market) - and the number of ADUs you can build in the entire city in a year is lower than some single new apartment buildings. We aren't keeping up with demand, much less drawing down the likely hundreds of thousands (seriously)…

That's a different goal post. Seattle is doing things to encourage building housing. Full stop. Which refutes the claim made.

Whether Seattle is building enough housing, or whether the region is doing enough to encourage housing development are separate claims.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#813

Post by shazbotter »

imgabe wrote: post #778
ImHereToVote wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You rent out or naturally. If most buildings in a given area are rented out. Then the owners have leverage on the renters.

If there are more buildings than people who want to live in them, then the owners have no leverage. They have to compete for renters. You make that happen by building more housing.

But once you own a house, it's in your interest financially to stop others from building them. Either as a bloc or as a massive corporate landlord, pressuring cities to "retain the historic character of a neighborhood".

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#815

Post by prawn »

waldohatesyou wrote: post #85
jerlam wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a much bigger group than homeowners. Banks don't want housing prices to fall, since then homeowners start foreclosing and then banks lose interest payments and own undesired property. Cities don't want housing prices to fall, since they were counting on money from developers and property taxes.

I don’t agree with this take, we’re overly simplifying the nature of housing here. It depends on the housing mix as well. If the vast majority of the pro-housing prices crowd is heavily invested in single family residential then they should favour widespread upzoning and deregulation of apartments because that would increase the value of their SFHs through two mechanisms: 1) presumably single family homes will be des…

I think the value of their main residence is a bigger driver than opportunities through zoning changes. It's easier to sit in your house year after year as it increases in value than it is to go through a redevelopment process, and have to move or end up with a less impressive residence. I'd guess that many would look for opportunities in denser suburbs elsewhere than agitate to change zoning closer to home.

There are strong factors around character of a neighbourhood: I think people in valuable SFHs tend to resent people in units as one example. Housing prices have typically risen without the assistance of zoning changes.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#816

Post by grafmax »

screye wrote: post #674
grafmax wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Abundance YIMBYism has many shortcomings. It doesn't address the risk of gentrification and displacement, the slow and unproven trickle-down effect of market-rate housing, or the critical need for direct public housing to serve low-income communities. Journalistic ideologues deserve little praise for dismantling the weakest counterarguments of their opponents while ignoring core criticisms.

> slow and unproven trickle-down effect of market-rate housing, or the critical need for direct public housing to serve low-income communities Your claims are unsubstantiated. I've only ever seen vague critiques by anti-abundance commentators. If you think YIMBY is wrong, then be specific in your criticisms. There is nothing special about direct public housing. It is housing built by the govt. The govt gets caught be…

> The govt gets caught between regulations, is slower, wasteful & pays higher wages to workers. Chicago [1] is contemporary proof that Govt. can't build housing.

This is overstated. Government can effective build public housing, many governments have succeeded in doing so. That article lists several issues with government housing in Chicago such as unstable funding and administrative overhead. The choice is between YIMBY policy regulatory changes to nudge housing supply or policy changes to improve public housing. And improving, expanding, and financing public housing is the structural solution to the problem not a bandaid. For example, market can never house the homeless because they don’t have money to pay for a house, even in a completely efficient market where housing is sold at cost. YIMBY effects are at best small, slow, and don’t significantly benefit the populations who need housing most.

Re: The anti-abundance critique on housing is wrong

#817

Post by siwatanejo »

ndileas wrote: post #538
siwatanejo wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you can literally just claim a new highrise > will block your sunlight and make you sad If a high-rise blocks a single electron of my apartment's normal sunlight, it would definitely make me sad.

Good news! You can't perceive the electrons in sunlight, only the photons.

did you just well-actually'ed me?
Post reply on HN