Live data from Hacker News

Austin’s surge of new housing construction drove down rents

pew.org

701–710 of 1001 posts

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

#701

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.

It’s a difficult problem not because we don’t know the simple solutions (supply and demand). It’s difficult because the people who have the majority vote also typically own the houses and they obviously don’t want the prices to go down. This is not just speaking about the US, many countries are facing this issue

"typically own the houses and they obviously don’t want the prices to go down."

I've never understood this: If I replace a single home with 20 apartment homes, I've raised the value of the whole property at purchase time no? You're already dealing with home valuations that have faaar outstripped wages, the only way you go any higher is to build more homes on the same property.

Counterintuitively, the "I don't want to live next to apartments" line of thinking actually seems more potent in the regular NIMBY headspace? Like people will forego higher valuations to keep their suburb a suburb.

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

#702

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?

To house people. Shelter is a basic need.

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

#703

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?

Building codes also push prices higher. In the EU, the recent regulations force developers to build luxury buildings as a baseline, at a high cost.

Not all buildings require elevators, intelligent thermostats, triple-panel windows or electric car plugs. Especially when you are experiencing a housing crisis.

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

#704
post #11

Meanwhile, California is also trying to build housing near transit, but Menlo Park wants to preserve the character of downtown by preserving dirty, cracked, flat, surface-level parking lots like it's 1950.

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…

[dead]

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

#705

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course demand is elastic. Do you think, people will migrate to a city with an unaffordable housing (unaffordable for them)? Unless you are living in North Korea, the competition is also there.

No, it is inelastic: - inelastic means the demand is more or less independet of the price; you can't "just stop renting & living" if prices are going up, your options to bypass are highly limited -> therefore its called >inelastic<

You can "just stop renting" and move somewhere else.

Housing demand is less elastic than, let's say, potato demand, but it's not "absolutely inelastic" as you have said.

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

#706

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.

We love solutions to housing that sound good but won’t work, like rent control and subsidizing demand. Building more is unpopular because it would actually work.

The same goes for homelessness. Feel good sound good solutions are popular. Housing the homeless is not.

BTW I have this weird crazy hypothesis that there might be a connection between homelessness and insufficient housing supply. Like, people not in a home, and not enough homes. I know it’s a stretch.

Sometimes I feel like there are other problems like this that we don’t really want to solve but want to pretend to solve.

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

#707
I am trying to build new homes in Washington state. I have been navigating a gauntlet of a five step process where eleven departments have to give approvals at each step and it has taken five years. This is just to split a twenty acre parcel into two ten acre parcels.

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

#708

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who are the people that “seriously question basic market pressure being a thing”? Am I missing something?

Just look through the comments on any post about housing or immigration and you will see hordes of them.

Are the comments in the thread with us right now? At best, from what I’ve seen, this is a strawman against the people that argue that building housing is not the only thing that should be done regarding housing. I’ve seen no comments that claim we shouldn’t build housing to alleviate the housing crisis.

Most comments that I see are about how from a policy perspective it’s more complicated. There’s no single “build more homes” magic wand that works for every market. And in some markets there are real people with real issues who could be helped by temporary policies that make landlording less profitable on the margins while people figure out how to best “build more homes” for that market.

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

#709

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No not really. You just have to restrict the same investor from buying all the housing in an area, and prevent investors from colluding on rents.

Sounds easier to just outlaw investor from owning houses they don't live in themselves. Seems we can't really stop collusion, only real way to win there is to not make that possible in the first place.

Then everyone is forced to buy a house to live in, no matter what their situation or desires are.

Of course we can stop collusion. What are you even talking about?

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

#710
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…

It seems like it would drive down housing prices, but (given limited zoning) drive up land prices?
Post reply on HN