3 ms·

TL;DR We vote and so politicians listen to our desires. Falling house prices would be a boon for renters and first-time buyers (and probably for society at lar

by sytelus 11y ago

TL;DR We vote and so politicians listen to our desires. Falling house prices would be a boon for renters and first-time buyers (and probably for society at large), but their political clout is less than that of middle-aged, middle-class property owners. Link baity article with no real "answer". Rents and house prices follow simple supply and demand over long term. Cities are either already saturated or don't allow new constructions limiting the supply however people never stop flocking to them year over year. Even the medium size cities see net inflow of 50K-100K people every year - which means you need that many more new housing units each year. So ultimately only a few % of people gets to live in city and everyone else are forced to suffer commute. This % keeps declining because population total keeps growing and so the rent keeps rising. Rent control etc can distort the economics for a while but not over long run. They are just "pain killers" when what you need is real medicine. The real medicine is simply policies that diversifies the areas. For example, encourage businesses to move in surrounding towns by offering tax benefits, build solid transportation network, open new public schools, encourage more constructions outside popular area, build communities with attractive facilities, build venues for cultural and sports events outside of cities and so on.

keepkalm 11y ago
Not to mention that declining home values weren't good for the economy as a whole. Transportation is a huge factor in available land that is currently dedicated to parking that could be used for housing. Uber and Lyft could change some land use policies but it is going to take a change in policy overall because I believe that it is largely tied to job growth which is essentially desirability. Seattle is expensive to rent or own in and yet Tacoma and Everett seem very affordable by comparison.
crzwdjk 11y ago
Cities are only "saturated" if you consider existing zoning. American cities in general are distinguished by having a very large proportion of single family homes, right in the city, generally on relatively large lots. And of course, the homeowners are relatively influential in local politics so they vote for policies that prop up the value of their assets by creating artificial scarcity. Some cities have been building more than others and they have lower rents: this has more to do with local land use policies than with how "saturated" the city is.
- sytelus 11y ago
  Even if you removed all these single family homes inside city and built skyscrappers instead, the additional units will get filled up pretty soon and at some point not too distant, you will be in the same situation again where you are now. The key fact here is that cities are seeing huge migrations from other areas since last couple of decades. There 100s of thousands of people piling up each year. Eventually they will get saturated. In large scheme of things, cities are artifact of ancient times when transportation was hard and natural landscape for habitat was scarce. Now both problems can be solved even for extreme places such as Dubai and there is no reason for huge swaths for human population to be concentrated in cities.

by sytelus 11y ago

keepkalm 11y ago

Not to mention that declining home values weren't good for the economy as a whole. Transportation is a huge factor in available land that is currently dedicated to parking that could be used for housing. Uber and Lyft could change some land use policies but it is going to take a change in policy overall because I believe that it is largely tied to job growth which is essentially desirability. Seattle is expensive to rent or own in and yet Tacoma and Everett seem very affordable by comparison.

crzwdjk 11y ago

Cities are only "saturated" if you consider existing zoning. American cities in general are distinguished by having a very large proportion of single family homes, right in the city, generally on relatively large lots. And of course, the homeowners are relatively influential in local politics so they vote for policies that prop up the value of their assets by creating artificial scarcity. Some cities have been building more than others and they have lower rents: this has more to do with local land use policies than with how "saturated" the city is.

sytelus 11y ago
Even if you removed all these single family homes inside city and built skyscrappers instead, the additional units will get filled up pretty soon and at some point not too distant, you will be in the same situation again where you are now. The key fact here is that cities are seeing huge migrations from other areas since last couple of decades. There 100s of thousands of people piling up each year. Eventually they will get saturated. In large scheme of things, cities are artifact of ancient times when transportation was hard and natural landscape for habitat was scarce. Now both problems can be solved even for extreme places such as Dubai and there is no reason for huge swaths for human population to be concentrated in cities.