Live data from Hacker News

Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

pew.org

461–470 of 1001 posts

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

#461
post #382

Its wild how the solution to housing costs is really just: Build more housing. Keep law and order. No it doesn’t need to be “affordable”. Yes rent control is a terrible idea. Just build more housing. Note: that the US already has plenty of housing and housing costs basically go up in areas of low crime relative to economic opportunity. If you build housing, but allow crime to rise, you have wasted everybody’s time.

So pretty much everything you've said here is wrong. Build more housing? In a place like Austin, you can just keep building out, basically. To a point. Eventually cities doing this reach a limit. Houston and Atlanta are pretty much at or beyond that limit. And it's not that building low-density SFH housing is the most economic. It's simply the most subsidized . Every road, every parking space, every sewer pipe, every…

I dont understand your solution, houses are expensive because there are too few of them in desirable places (otherwise we have plenty). The govt becoming a command economy wrt to housing does not fix the supply. If the govt is just supposed to handle all the supply and demand aspects of housing well I have good news, there is a lot of very cheap housing in former Soviet Republics just not desirable housing.

Also taxing homeowners harder doesnt really solve the problem. CA has insane taxes, SF especially has a giant budget. They just waste it. I dont believe that once the govt raises taxes they will suddenly become efficient and competent.

The idea that the more spread things out the more expensive they are is sound theory. However in practice, per capita taxes in a city are often higher than the rural or suburban regions. One water main should serve more people in a city and its cost amortized across the population should be cheaper.

In practice, cities tend to have tons of programs that drive taxes up. They are free to do that, not necessarily bad, but also not efficient from a tax payer perspective.

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

#462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, so long as the balance involves not housing people which is pretty sick and twisted

I don’t understand your sentence. What’s the subject of the verb “housing.”

The subject is “people”. Parent is suggesting that the equilibrium point of housing supply and demand naturally leaves some people unhoused.

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

#463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is the possibility that the government builds housing, since the government doesn't have to care about direct profits and can include the overall economic effects of affordable housing in its calculations. We don't expect much direct profits from roads either, but we keep building more and more of them.

That only makes sense if there is a positive externality from housing. Is there?

Of course, many.

To be sure, are you asking if society does better when its people are homed vs. homeless? Because that seems like a question with an obviously-yes answer.

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

#464

Why do people accept that supply/demand works in so many industries when the private market is allowed to flourish, but won't accept it for healthcare, education, etc?

Because for-profit healthcare and higher ed have shown poor outcomes empirically?

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

#465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you seen Tokyo?

I've lived in Tokyo and Houston. Tokyo is infinitely more livable and the housing is still relatively affordable. In Houston even if you can get a new place it'll be clapboard garbage that's a one and a half hour drive from work.

Average home price in Tokyo is 1.5x that of Houston. Average wage in Houston is 1.5x that of Tokyo. So the data doesn't support your post unless you really really love sushi and arcades.

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

#466

Its wild how the solution to housing costs is really just: Build more housing. Keep law and order. No it doesn’t need to be “affordable”. Yes rent control is a terrible idea. Just build more housing. Note: that the US already has plenty of housing and housing costs basically go up in areas of low crime relative to economic opportunity. If you build housing, but allow crime to rise, you have wasted everybody’s time.

[flagged]

[deleted]

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

#467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused by this objection, if you draw a stereotypical supply and demand curve, you can see how prices settle to an equilibrium point. Of course reality has more complications, but I think your objection is 95% answered by a supply and demand curve. You keep building houses when it is profitable. You stop when it is not. This naturally keeps everything in balance.

What do you do when that equilibrium point is hopelessly above what the average person can afford?

That means there’s an invisible hand keeping prices up, or basically that the market is not free enough. That’s caused most of the time due to excessive regulation.

Another reason is high demand in locations where offer is limited due to physical limitations. There’s always demand to live in Broadway, and offer can never catch up due to its physical limitations.

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

#468
post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Affordable housing used as an incentive or way to overcome other barriers to housing (density limits, height limits, zoning etc) I'm not sure what type of affordable housing program doesn't meet this definition. They are almost always tied to incentives for developers, including sometimes in the form of a removal of other housing restrictions. Or are you specifically objecting to financial assistance on the renter/b…

See San Francisco. Also generally anywhere else where prices are rising and developers can’t develop and yet there are a lot of affordable housing policies. CA as a whole has mismanaged this so badly they have a net migration outflow. Also removing other housing restrictions that ostensibly were put in there by constituents is a valid reason for constituents to oppose AH. They get called NIMBYs for this but if the lo…

>Also generally anywhere else where prices are rising and developers can’t develop and yet there are a lot of affordable housing policies.

Like I said, the “it” in “it doesn’t need to be “affordable”” seemed like it was referencing the previous “Build more housing”, so situations in which nothing is built are different. If your original intent was that not all housing policy should be about affordable housing, then we agree. But I do think it's an important part of the solution.

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

#469

Its wild how the solution to housing costs is really just: Build more housing. Keep law and order. No it doesn’t need to be “affordable”. Yes rent control is a terrible idea. Just build more housing. Note: that the US already has plenty of housing and housing costs basically go up in areas of low crime relative to economic opportunity. If you build housing, but allow crime to rise, you have wasted everybody’s time.

New construction has already decelerated in Austin due to falling prices, which compresses already-near-zero margin on real estate development. So yes, it really is "just build more housing." The problem is: why would you build more housing as prices fall?

> The problem is: why would you build more housing as prices fall?

Profitability is not black-and-white. Real estate investments can still be profitable if prices fall.

There are different types of real estate markets too. Working class homes in suburbs are not the same market as upper middle class apartments in an urban center.

A very interesting type of investment is high-density housing in catchment areas of new public transportation hubs. Those tend to be so profitable that they can even finance the investment in the public transportation service.

All you need is willingness to invest.

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

#470

Its wild how the solution to housing costs is really just: Build more housing. Keep law and order. No it doesn’t need to be “affordable”. Yes rent control is a terrible idea. Just build more housing. Note: that the US already has plenty of housing and housing costs basically go up in areas of low crime relative to economic opportunity. If you build housing, but allow crime to rise, you have wasted everybody’s time.

And yet, if you dig through the various comments on HN over the years regarding SF housing costs the overwhelming conesus is more rent control. Sometimes, the most common sense solution turns out to be the correct one.

Hows that working for SF so far?
Post reply on HN