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

571–580 of 1001 posts

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

#571

Post by zozbot234 »

bps4484 wrote: post #443
rconti wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never seen the evidence where density increases drive down existing land/home values.

it's not that density per se drives down existing costs, but density almost always brings more housing stock to the market (unless they are simultanously tearing down housing elsewhere) and housing stock drives down the cost of housing, which is the point of the original article. So if we take it as an assumption that density increases housing stock, there is lots of evidence that density drives down prices of existi…

Density is not going to drive down cost for the same kind of housing. A SFH is not the same as a smaller home on a denser plot, much less an apartment block in a high rise. So the SFH owner who pursues increased density does indeed benefit.

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

#572

Post by baq »

sophrosyne42 wrote: post #549
michaelmrose wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a minority has most of the wealth then the equilibrium supply may include a lot of supply of second homes, very large homes on large plots for the rich, properties sold at a premium based on how much they can extract from renters, and even investment properties occupied by nobody whilst still having insufficient small basic homes and dense housing. Capital that could be invested in better serving the bottom half h…

There is more than enough land for everyone, and rich people aren't really competing for the kind of housing that poor people are competing for, e.g. smaller plots with smaller homes. The demand of the rich does not eliminate demand of the poor, so the market produces different kinds of housing for different clientele. Think about it this way: assume you supply all the housing to all the rich people. Then there still…

But zoning is required to maintain order. Nobody wants anybody to live in favelas.

As with everything the regulator needs to strike a balance to make the market work.

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

#573

Post by zozbot234 »

armada651 wrote: post #268
lurk2 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

-

> If NIMBYs were primary motivated by making money the prudent thing to do would be to support unrestricted zoning and then develop or sell the lot. That is highly dependent on what exactly is being built next to your home. Sure, if it's more luxury housing then it'll probably drive the value of your home up. If it's low-income housing then it probably won't. And what we need is more of the latter rather than the for…

> And what we need is more of the latter rather than the former.

You just need to wait. The luxury housing that gets built today becomes low-income housing as it ages. There's no short-circuiting that process the way the incentives are set up, but you can drive down prices across the board by building more, even more luxury housing.

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

#574

Post by vkou »

TurdF3rguson wrote: post #561
vkou wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also why should cities prioritize protecting residents based on how long they've lived there? Everyone counts the same. That's a great question. Why do countries prioritize existing citizens over all people who want to move into them? We are, after all, all the same. Two legs, two arms, just under a dozen fingers, most of us aren't destructive shitheads. If we just let in anyone who wants to emigrate, you wouldn't…

You're not emigrating anywhere, lol. Should I be treated like trash when I move from Bronx to Queens? How about SoHo to Tribeca? All US citizens have the same rights and every vote counts the same as every other vote.

Should Juan be treated like trash if he wants to move from Mexico City or Honduras to Queens?

Why should you deny him that mobility? Is he any worse a person than you are? Why does he have to jump through hoops and quotas and queues and all sorts of degrading, dehumanizing bullshit before he can do so?

Why?

---

If your answer is 'because that's the law and because we can make him jump through all those hoops', that's the answer to why cities choose to protect people who are existing residents at the expense of people who aren't. Because it's the law and because they can, if you don't like it, tough, you are free to go somewhere else.

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

#575

Post by roenxi »

michaelmrose wrote: post #532
pinkmuffinere wrote: post #376

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.

If a minority has most of the wealth then the equilibrium supply may include a lot of supply of second homes, very large homes on large plots for the rich, properties sold at a premium based on how much they can extract from renters, and even investment properties occupied by nobody whilst still having insufficient small basic homes and dense housing. Capital that could be invested in better serving the bottom half h…

There's a couple of "ifs" there and the scenario seems implausible. If I look at the prime real estate in a city it tends to be a lot of skyscrapers rather than very large homes (with occasional exceptions like say a Buckingham Palace). But it looks like the economic equilibrium is lots of cheaper apartments rather than large homes for rich people.

> ... and even investment properties occupied by nobody ...

Not much of an investment. Something is wrong if that is happening, probably manifesting as a lack of supply. Otherwise what is the point of an "asset" that doesn't generate income, degrades over time and could easily be rented out at a profit rather than sitting unused?

Whatever scenario there is where it makes sense to have an empty property, assuming a sane policy backdrop, it'd always be better for the owner do what they were going to do anyway but also rent it out.

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

#576

Post by aqme28 »

rconti wrote: post #419
wcfrobert wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NIMBYism has never been about preserving neighborhood characteristic, or noise and traffic concerns. Menlo Park is not Big Sur. Sure, some concerns are reasonable and should be investigated, but most of the time they're bureaucratic distractions that's been weaponized by people who want to delay progress and protect their investment. For most Americans, A house is their primary savings account, retirement plan, and p…

I've never seen the evidence where density increases drive down existing land/home values.

Isn't the parent article basically evidence of this? Housing supply grew, and prices fell.

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

#577

Post by usui »

diogenescynic wrote: post #322

Wow it's almost like the law of supply and demand is in fact accurate. Who would have thought basic economic 101 would be proven out? It's almost like when you allow supply to increase to meet demand the price equilibrium can move down. Shocking. I say this with a bit of righteous anger though because the moronic democrats in California want to virtue signal about housing and homelessness but they make it downright a…

I'm with you and feel your anger. So tired of California's useless virtue signaling about housing and homelessness while no progress is made for decades. California, stop messing around and start living up to your virtue signals! It's infuriating to live in California, hear all day about caring about poor people, then do nothing at all for the bottom line and in fact endeavor to make it harder and discriminate against poor people as much as possible.

And then they'll act so surprised when the populists without a plan show up and win the national elections.

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

#578

Post by aqme28 »

jmyeet wrote: post #401
wcfrobert wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NIMBYism has never been about preserving neighborhood characteristic, or noise and traffic concerns. Menlo Park is not Big Sur. Sure, some concerns are reasonable and should be investigated, but most of the time they're bureaucratic distractions that's been weaponized by people who want to delay progress and protect their investment. For most Americans, A house is their primary savings account, retirement plan, and p…

Fundamentally as a society we need to stop treating housing as an investment. It is and should be a utility. Suring property prices is a relatively new phenomenon (as in, post-WW2). The true origins of NIMBYism, at least in the US, is (you guessed it) racism. Long before segregation ended, and long after, there was economic segregation . Redlining [1], HOAs [2], the post-WW2 GI Bill [3], where highways were built [4]…

Yes. A lot of people are happy when housing prices rise, because it benefits them. But higher housing prices are worse for us as a society.

Similarly, higher gas prices benefit the gas industry but we shouldn't let that dictate policy.

: unfortunately, we somewhat do.

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

#579

Post by TurdF3rguson »

vkou wrote: post #574
TurdF3rguson wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not emigrating anywhere, lol. Should I be treated like trash when I move from Bronx to Queens? How about SoHo to Tribeca? All US citizens have the same rights and every vote counts the same as every other vote.

Should Juan be treated like trash if he wants to move from Mexico City or Honduras to Queens? Why should you deny him that mobility? Is he any worse a person than you are? Why does he have to jump through hoops and quotas and queues and all sorts of degrading, dehumanizing bullshit before he can do so? Why? --- If your answer is 'because that's the law and because we can make him jump through all those hoops', that's…

I guess I need to hear more about your seniority rules. If I leave in a city all my life and leave for a month, do I have to start over when I move back?

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

#580

Post by [deleted] »

baq wrote: post #572
sophrosyne42 wrote: post #549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is more than enough land for everyone, and rich people aren't really competing for the kind of housing that poor people are competing for, e.g. smaller plots with smaller homes. The demand of the rich does not eliminate demand of the poor, so the market produces different kinds of housing for different clientele. Think about it this way: assume you supply all the housing to all the rich people. Then there still…

But zoning is required to maintain order. Nobody wants anybody to live in favelas. As with everything the regulator needs to strike a balance to make the market work.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN