3 ms·

I don't exactly agree with the rationale, but I don't think your analogy about luxury housing accurately portrays the problem. Larger, better built housing with

I don't exactly agree with the rationale, but I don't think your analogy about luxury housing accurately portrays the problem. Larger, better built housing with extra amenities will cost more and almost certainly gentrify the neighborhood. I think the idea against allowing luxury housing is more that this would only help the already affluent population while simultaneously driving up housing costs in the area.

seivan 11y ago
Larger better built houses means those people who want that will give up their current place for that. It will even out and works better than the current system. Granted I'm not from Berlin, but our situation (Stockholm) is exactly the same and the only way out is taking on the risk of buying property in an already over-heated bubble. edit: There is an alternative and that is to find a second hand contracts where you will have to move out in a year because most co-op boards won't allow the owner to rent out for more than a year.
- hussong 11y ago
  Problem is that their old place will go back to the market on a new lease and, in popular areas, twice the rent. Also, if you've been in your current apartment for 5+ years, changing apartments effectively means double rent for you. Everybody I know who has an OK apartment in Berlin stays there, because an extra room etc. would mean 500-1000 Euros rent increase.
  - Kalium 11y ago
    If there is sufficient supply, the old place won't go back on the market for a much higher rent. What you describe is what happens when you build a handful of units in the midst of a major shortage. Have you been following the events surrounding the problems with rising rents in San Francisco? What you're describing is what has already happened here. I cannot overstate the importance of avoiding the mistakes of SF. Refusing to build in a place people want to live in will not lower rents. It only drives gentrification, evictions, and higher rents.
Kalium 11y ago
This is precisely the mistake San Francisco has made. I strongly suggest not repeating it. The problem is that the fallback position tends to be building no new housing at all. This results in the same new people with more money moving in, driving up housing costs and gentrifying the area. No amount of not building housing makes rents low.
- simoncion 11y ago
  > This is precisely the mistake San Francisco has made. What is that mistake? Permitting new, nice housing? If this is your opinion, I cannot agree with it. Firstly, something like 10->20% of all new residential construction must either be set aside for "affordable housing", or enough money must be given to The City to construct those units on behalf of the developer. Secondly, San Francisco's mistake is to -through a variety of screwups- make it nearly impossible to build new, dense residential buildings in the city. If a district is able to build enough housing to meet current and expected near-future demand, rents will usually remain stable. See footnotes 0 and 1 at [0] for some info on long-term trends in the area. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10556534 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10556534
  - Kalium 11y ago
    SF's mistake has been not allowing much of any housing to be built. This is what I'm suggesting needs to be avoided at all costs.
    - simoncion 11y ago
      Ah. It wasn't clear from your prose that this was your intended statement. The statement about the fallback position substantially muddied the waters, as it seems that the fallback position described is more-or-less the situation in SF right now. Oh well. :)
      - Kalium 11y ago
        It happens! On with life. :)

seivan 11y ago

Larger better built houses means those people who want that will give up their current place for that. It will even out and works better than the current system. Granted I'm not from Berlin, but our situation (Stockholm) is exactly the same and the only way out is taking on the risk of buying property in an already over-heated bubble. edit: There is an alternative and that is to find a second hand contracts where you will have to move out in a year because most co-op boards won't allow the owner to rent out for more than a year.

hussong 11y ago
Problem is that their old place will go back to the market on a new lease and, in popular areas, twice the rent. Also, if you've been in your current apartment for 5+ years, changing apartments effectively means double rent for you. Everybody I know who has an OK apartment in Berlin stays there, because an extra room etc. would mean 500-1000 Euros rent increase.
- Kalium 11y ago
  If there is sufficient supply, the old place won't go back on the market for a much higher rent. What you describe is what happens when you build a handful of units in the midst of a major shortage. Have you been following the events surrounding the problems with rising rents in San Francisco? What you're describing is what has already happened here. I cannot overstate the importance of avoiding the mistakes of SF. Refusing to build in a place people want to live in will not lower rents. It only drives gentrification, evictions, and higher rents.

Kalium 11y ago

This is precisely the mistake San Francisco has made. I strongly suggest not repeating it. The problem is that the fallback position tends to be building no new housing at all. This results in the same new people with more money moving in, driving up housing costs and gentrifying the area. No amount of not building housing makes rents low.

simoncion 11y ago
> This is precisely the mistake San Francisco has made. What is that mistake? Permitting new, nice housing? If this is your opinion, I cannot agree with it. Firstly, something like 10->20% of all new residential construction must either be set aside for "affordable housing", or enough money must be given to The City to construct those units on behalf of the developer. Secondly, San Francisco's mistake is to -through a variety of screwups- make it nearly impossible to build new, dense residential buildings in the city. If a district is able to build enough housing to meet current and expected near-future demand, rents will usually remain stable. See footnotes 0 and 1 at [0] for some info on long-term trends in the area. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10556534 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10556534
- Kalium 11y ago
  SF's mistake has been not allowing much of any housing to be built. This is what I'm suggesting needs to be avoided at all costs.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    Ah. It wasn't clear from your prose that this was your intended statement. The statement about the fallback position substantially muddied the waters, as it seems that the fallback position described is more-or-less the situation in SF right now. Oh well. :)
    - Kalium 11y ago
      It happens! On with life. :)