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

The end of the housing supply debate (maybe)

cityobservatory.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–126 of 126 posts

Re: The end of the housing supply debate (maybe)

#121

Post by OrwellianChild »

throwawaymsft wrote: post #118
OrwellianChild wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one has seen fit to build much luxury housing in Cleveland, OH lately, but what exists already (at rock-bottom prices) doesn't seem to be attracting much population from outside... Induced demand is definitely a thing for roads, but that demand is from fixed supply of people. In the roads case, it is counter-intuitive specifically because it causes the same number of people to drive more, on average. That dynamic…

I'd posit it's hard to know what the dynamic would be. Consider certain luxury goods ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good ) where increasing the price increases the demand. (Conveniently, economists have a model and also a name for things that don't follow the model. The universe can be divided into bananas and non-bananas.) Cleveland isn't a prestigious world-class city attractive to the wealthy, but if new l…

I'm assuming you're suggestion that housing is a Veblen good is in jest - I can build a shining, gilded tower in the middle of Wyoming and I'm not going to attract America's wealthiest citizens to Cheyenne...

It seems like you're conflating cause and effect here - If Cleveland isn't good enough, then it must be the tier-1 city that is the cause of the demand. Not the housing itself. Further, unless the new luxury units are sitting empty (a problem Vancouver, BC dealt with for awhile), then the market for rents functions regardless of whether speculation is occurring. I invite you to find an example of vacancies increasing in the same place that housing/rents climb - it won't exist in any of the real estate hot-beds in America.

The main thrust of this article and the research surrounding it by folks like City Observatory, Sightline Institute, etc. is that we now do know the dynamic of housing prices in booming economies. I don't feel like you've provided any evidence that contradicts the conclusions presented in the research, so I'm having trouble pinpointing your skepticism. Let me know if I've missed your point!

Re: The end of the housing supply debate (maybe)

#122

Post by timr »

quotemstr wrote: post #71
timr wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"See, that's the problem: anti-housing advocates have the wrong moral object in mind. There's no use caring about "neighborhoods" Yeah, fuck 'em. For that matter, let's not care about cities or states, either. As long as the national mean rent goes down, everything is dandy, right? After all, we all know that real estate is global. Let the poor move to North Dakota. /s When you have two affordable neighborhoods in a…

If you want a perpetual right to a piece of real estate, buy it. I'm a renter myself. I accept uncertainty as part of the bargain. Part of renting is accepting that your tenure in a particular location might last only as long as your lease. If we had it your way and gave renters a de-facto property right to stay in their apartments as long as they liked, we would slow the development of cities and put pressure on the…

"If you want a perpetual right to a piece of real estate, buy it. I'm a renter myself. I accept uncertainty as part of the bargain."

You must have posted this to the wrong thread, because it has nothing to do with anything I've written. There are legitimate, open questions about development policy. That doesn't mean anyone is giving renters a "de-facto property right" to live in their homes forever. How about we start with simply building affordable housing, for a change?

In any case, regardless of your Randian philosophies about what poor folks "should" do to remain in their homes, cities don't function when the people who cook your food and fix your sewers can't live near the city anymore. So these things actually do matter, and the only people currently getting screwed are the poor. We can deal with fairness for rich people once it's an observable problem.

(That said, I'll admit I tremendously enjoy how you jump from complaining about renters screwing society, to complaining about prop 13 in what...50 characters? You're Angry because you're getting screwed by pretty much everyone, it seems.)

Re: The end of the housing supply debate (maybe)

#123

Post by jldugger »

sliverstorm wrote: post #40
tmnvix wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I can't see how that could be possible.

By fueling the boom? The greater the supply, the bigger the phenomenon, the more people it pulls in. Notice there are not a lot of speculative booms in things the world only has three of.

Have you studied art auctions much?

Re: The end of the housing supply debate (maybe)

#124

Post by malyk »

kevinburke wrote: post #119
malyk wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which they can probably pretty accurately say it is causing rent increases, albeit not directly. It goes something like this: 1.) New housing starts to get built 2.) The new residents demand safer/cleaner streets or just higher quality restaurants/cafes/etc. Or, sensing a market opportunity, those businesses move in themselves. 3.) Those things happen...and more 4.) More residents want to move in 5.) Prices for the e…

By that logic destroying homes in the Mission would decrease demand, which makes no sense.

That does not follow at all.

What it says is "there may be nearly infinite demand for high cost housing in the mission".

Re: The end of the housing supply debate (maybe)

#125

Post by kelnos »

jogjayr wrote: post #110
kelnos wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SF already has plenty of "non luxury" housing that has been gobbled up for luxury prices, often displacing people who could normally afford such housing. The theory is that building more luxury housing will take pressure off the non-luxury stock. I agree with that theory, but building more affordable and below-market housing (instead, or simultaneously) will likely have a faster, more positive effect.

But it's impossible to make affordable and below-market housing profitable unless the underlying issues, land acquisition costs and zoning, are addressed. That means the government will have to subsidize these units and they still won't be enough to meet demand. So only the lucky few who win the housing lottery will benefit. Everyone else (most lower-income people, middle-income renters overpaying for low-end housing…

> But it's impossible to make affordable and below-market housing profitable unless the underlying issues, land acquisition costs and zoning, are addressed.

Totally agree. Developers don't want to build affordable housing because they in some cases actually stand to lose money when doing so. SF's byzantine planning process makes it that way, and that's not going to change without some heavy reform there.

Re: The end of the housing supply debate (maybe)

#126

Post by dredmorbius »

quotemstr wrote: post #87
pash wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Induced demand [0], if that’s the phenomenon you have in mind, does not mean that “increasing highway capacity increases congestion.” It just means that adding capacity increases usage of the road, often to the point that so many more drivers show up to use the expanded roadway that the improvements do nothing to reduce traffic delays. There is no economic mystery in induced demand: it’s Economics 101 once you realiz…

And it's this effect that prompts my strong support for tolling all roads. It's better for everyone to pay for scarce resources in money, not the awkward currency of time.

That tends to be more equitable if the money's evenly distributed.

Or if the tolls are indexed to wealth and/or income.

Post reply on HN