41–50 of 253 posts
From the Zumper report. 22% gain on SF 2B is just insane to me.
But what about the desirability of San Diego? Was the decrease in rent only because of the increase in supply, or is there also lower demand?
Very off the cuff but I do see some news about shrinking population - https://www.reddit.com/r/sandiego/comments/1s71z3a/san_diego...
Lots of people quoting basic supply and demand. People in the year 1500 could pretty reliably tell you that a rock would fall down if you released it from a height. People would also tell you that if you threw it up and away, it would go up in an arc and fall down. The innovation that Newtown and friends brought about was they made quantitative predictions about the rate at which the rock would fall down, or the arc…
They are mostly interested in "rent go down", or at least "rent not go up".
That said, there are people who have studied this. You don't need Newtonian level math to calculate elasticity. Hell, we can look at how rents rise in a constrained market and make a pretty good guess what would happen if supply increases.
There are dozens of papers that have these numbers when you search the academic databases for "rent elasticity"
Lots of people quoting basic supply and demand. People in the year 1500 could pretty reliably tell you that a rock would fall down if you released it from a height. People would also tell you that if you threw it up and away, it would go up in an arc and fall down. The innovation that Newtown and friends brought about was they made quantitative predictions about the rate at which the rock would fall down, or the arc…
Notably, though, a significant fraction of people seem to believe that building more housing will cause rents to increase. So it seems like it is still important to point to data suggesting the opposite.
In a city I used to live, the city decided to revitalize a section of downtown by bringing down some old small buildings and replacing them with high rises. The resultant effect was a bloom in shops and restaurants in the area. That meant that 1km^2 area became a lot more attractive, landlords jacked up rents, and existing tenants in the other buildings in the area had to move out for people who were willing to pay 2x the rent. Of course rents probably went down elsewhere in the city to compensate.
You will never get this sort of prediction from simply supply and demand. You need to build quantitative and holistic models that make predictions based on a range of factors. Then use those to make policy.
Increase in supply lowers equilibrium price? Somebody, pinch me!
A mainstream view on one side of the political spectrum that increase in new home supply(especially if high end) does not lower prices or reduce shortage. > One well-worn refrain of progressive urban politics is that new, “luxury” housing will not help solve the housing shortage. A 2024 study of U.S. voters found that 30 to 40 percent believed more housing would, instead, increase prices, and another 30 percent belie…
Incredible. So what you're saying is... we should just build more housing? Who would have thought that was the answer?
But what about the desirability of San Diego? Was the decrease in rent only because of the increase in supply, or is there also lower demand?
Edit: I think we should build several million more units of housing in the US. I'm salty because all the new housing I've seen is ugly shitboxes owned by national property firms that make everywhere feel like nowhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That part is the obvious part. I want to know how they got all the entrenched landowners to let new builds in their neighborhoods and drive down values. The NIMBYs are usually the problem.
Unfortunately, it's not actually obvious. There are heaps of people, even and especially in the most expensive housing markets in the US, who will outright argue that supply and demand doesn't apply to housing.