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

Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

pew.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 1001 posts

Re: Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

#81

Post by solid_fuel »

cg5280 wrote: post #27
amelius wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the people in power don't want prices to go down?

The problem isn’t the powers that be. A lot of regular homeowners fight new developments tooth and nail. And many blue states unfortunately give them a lot of tools to do so.

> A lot of regular homeowners fight new developments tooth and nail.

In a system where those with more capitol have more power, homeowners are the powers that be. They're more likely to vote and have more money for discretionary spending - like donating to politicians.

Re: Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

#82

Post by servo_sausage »

Gigachad wrote: post #8

Same has been happening in Melbourne, Australia. The state government has basically steamrolled the boomers and allowed highrise construction next to existing train stations. Despite having huge population growth, rents are some of the most affordable in the country.

One of the things I like about the reporting in this Austin article, is they break down by building class.

In Melbourne I've never found a good source for this, only general averages; and my suspicions are that we just build shitboxes and claim the rent is lower on average, capturing something like shrinkflation rather than affordability.

Re: Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

#83

Post by epistasis »

cg5280 wrote: post #27
amelius wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the people in power don't want prices to go down?

The problem isn’t the powers that be. A lot of regular homeowners fight new developments tooth and nail. And many blue states unfortunately give them a lot of tools to do so.

People want to blame the 1% for massive wealth ineqality, but when it comes to unaffordable housing, a basic necessity of life, the villain is actually about 30% of the population that is rich enough to own homes, act like rentiers, and block access to neighborhoods and opportunities.

The greatest inequality difference is that between those with housing assets and those without. Yes the 1% are a problem but they are not the reason that young people can no longer afford housing without generational wealth, that's all due to the seemingly normal guy that's enforcing a class system based on home ownership versus non-ownership.

Re: Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

#84

Post by BurningFrog »

amelius wrote: post #10
nemomarx wrote: post #3

Good news - experimental verification of the law of supply and demand! I'm sure the analysis is welcome though and I hope policy makers try to learn from this. We could densify most american cities quite a lot more.

What if the people in power don't want prices to go down?

After a few decades in California, I'm pretty sure there are no "people in power".

There are a lot of people with some power, which they use as they see fit. It all adds up to marginal and pseudo-random changes, as the state drifts toward... wherever it's going.

Re: Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

#85

Post by bryan_w »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #30
nemomarx wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can recoup the investment with volume (especially apartments) I would think? Sell 10 houses at 2 million each or 30 at 1 million each or however it breaks down.

Their land, labor, and material costs aren’t trivial. If thy were pulling a 10-20% margin before, how will increasing volume (which increases costs) make it up?

They reinvest that generous 10% to buy more tools and hire more talent to build 10x as many homes at 2%. Seems pretty straightforward to me

Re: Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

#87

Post by calvinmorrison »

solid_fuel wrote: post #81
cg5280 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem isn’t the powers that be. A lot of regular homeowners fight new developments tooth and nail. And many blue states unfortunately give them a lot of tools to do so.

> A lot of regular homeowners fight new developments tooth and nail. In a system where those with more capitol have more power, homeowners are the powers that be. They're more likely to vote and have more money for discretionary spending - like donating to politicians.

People have been steered for decades into using their home as a vehicle for retirement. Of course they want to protecet it.

Re: Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

#88

Post by bombcar »

cheriot wrote: post #20
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #7

>>> The city changed zoning regulations to allow construction of large apartment buildings, particularly near jobs and transit. In 2018, voters approved a $250 million bond measure to build and repair affordable housing. Permitting processes were reformed to speed development and reduce costs. All three of the five things most economists say about house building - and each one will hit house owning voters hard making…

> and each one will hit house owning voters hard making it hard to replicate In a negative way?

As a home owner I don't really care about number go up. I'd rather it go up than down, sure. But staying level would also suit me fine.

Going down might be nice, perhaps I could buy the neighbor's house and combine the lots and make a nice set of row houses ...

House go up being important is really only needed if I'm using it for leveraged appreciation and doing something like dragging the cash out like a piggy bank; but that's a tiger that will have to be dismounted eventually.

Re: Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

#89

Post by tkel »

riknos314 wrote: post #4

So glad we don't need to re-write the first chapter of almost every economics 101 textbook!

There's loads of other inefficiencies as well. Moving is a huge hurdle. It's difficult to find housing that meets dozens of conditions, and even then you don't respond to supply + demand imagined equilibrium, you pay more or pay less to live near friends or family. It's something you only do a handful of times in your whole life. Trying to use the same analysis as for buying a can of beans is absurd. You might need to take econ 201 before you understand why econ 101 is wrong about housing.

Re: Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

#90

Post by pibaker »

amelius wrote: post #10
nemomarx wrote: post #3

Good news - experimental verification of the law of supply and demand! I'm sure the analysis is welcome though and I hope policy makers try to learn from this. We could densify most american cities quite a lot more.

What if the people in power don't want prices to go down?

Over 60% of Americans are homeowners. In any functioning democracy, they ought to be the people in power.
Post reply on HN