5 ms·

While I agree that this is perhaps a symbolic gesture at best, one can’t claim that costs are being “increased for the poor” when this will only apply to new bu

While I agree that this is perhaps a symbolic gesture at best, one can’t claim that costs are being “increased for the poor” when this will only apply to new buildings which are certainly not being built by or rented to “the poor”

bryanlarsen 11y ago
New buildings for rich people lower prices for everybody. Apartments are fairly fungible: if nice apartments aren't available, rich people rent not-so-nice apartments, pushing up the prices of those.
- eecsninja 11y ago
  See here for an example of this concept, although this is about buying rather than renting: http://sf.curbed.com/2015/10/8/9913302/victorian-disemboweled-by-flippers-takes-a-big-700k-chop http://sf.curbed.com/2015/10/8/9913302/victorian-disembowele...
- rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
  My favorite misconception! Here in Ithaca NY, Collegetown used to be a sleepy neighborhood of large divided houses rented to Cornell students. About 20 years ago they began densifying like crazy. 2-3 story houses for 8 people became 8-floor apartments and studios. And you know what? Rent is higher than ever! Everywhere! Once you build up you can charge higher rents, which means the landlord next door can charge slightly higher rents, and so on. Building housing almost never lowers rents for the non-rich, unless there is a massive recession (Florida), or an equivalent rise in wages. People build dense housing because they expect people to keep coming...
  - guimarin 11y ago
    This is wrong. Both the students at Cornell and Ithaca university got wealthier, and more people moved to the area/stayed as a result of the schools expanding over the last 20 years. There was a natural increase in demand, which resulted in new construction, and which ALSO resulted in higher rents. If housing in Ithaca had kept up with demand prices would not have exceeded inflation and quality of the unit.
    - Alex3917 11y ago
      > Both the students at Cornell and Ithaca university got wealthier, and more people moved to the area/stayed as a result of the schools expanding over the last 20 years. Evidence? In the last ten years the typical apartment in Ithaca has gone from $550/mo to $1500/mo, which seems far in excess of the extra 1,500 people or so spread across the city, especially given they've been building new apartments like crazy the entire time.
      - LanceH 11y ago
        So you're saying supply went up and they just started charging more and got it?
        Alex3917 11y ago
        Well that's what I was trying to figure out, but as far as I can see (based on a quick look at their population growth figures) that's basically what happened.
  - zyxley 11y ago
    You seem to be assuming that new housing caused a rise in rents, while ignoring that the reason substantial new housing is built in a short period somewhere is because people want to move there. If a lot of people want to move somewhere, rents will rise with or without new housing!
  - macspoofing 11y ago
    >About 20 years ago they began densifying like crazy. 2-3 story houses for 8 people became 8-floor apartments and studios. And you know what? Rent is higher than ever! Everywhere! So developers started building houses, which caused more people want to move there and rising rent prices? You sure you have the right cause and effect there? It sounds like 20 years ago demand for housing prices started to rise and the supply never kept up.
Kalium 11y ago
Today's new building for the "rich" is tomorrow's housing for the poor.
- Eric_WVGG 11y ago
  Nice quip. So what? Are you suggesting that today’s “rich” shouldn’t build homes with marble countertops because that will someday in the unforeseeable future be somehow absorbed by the “poor”?
  - TheCoelacanth 11y ago
    No, the suggestion is that something that discourages building new homes for the rich now, will also have the future impact of reducing the amount of housing available for the poor. A building that houses rich people today could easily house middle class people in 25 years and poor people in 50 years as it becomes less desirable as it ages.
guimarin 11y ago
This viewpoint is 100% not supported with evidence from any jurisdiction on the planet. The only way to lower rents/costs for the poor without disastrous social consequences is to increase supply of market rate units. There is not other solution which works.

bryanlarsen 11y ago

New buildings for rich people lower prices for everybody. Apartments are fairly fungible: if nice apartments aren't available, rich people rent not-so-nice apartments, pushing up the prices of those.

eecsninja 11y ago
See here for an example of this concept, although this is about buying rather than renting: http://sf.curbed.com/2015/10/8/9913302/victorian-disemboweled-by-flippers-takes-a-big-700k-chop http://sf.curbed.com/2015/10/8/9913302/victorian-disembowele...
rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
My favorite misconception! Here in Ithaca NY, Collegetown used to be a sleepy neighborhood of large divided houses rented to Cornell students. About 20 years ago they began densifying like crazy. 2-3 story houses for 8 people became 8-floor apartments and studios. And you know what? Rent is higher than ever! Everywhere! Once you build up you can charge higher rents, which means the landlord next door can charge slightly higher rents, and so on. Building housing almost never lowers rents for the non-rich, unless there is a massive recession (Florida), or an equivalent rise in wages. People build dense housing because they expect people to keep coming...
- guimarin 11y ago
  This is wrong. Both the students at Cornell and Ithaca university got wealthier, and more people moved to the area/stayed as a result of the schools expanding over the last 20 years. There was a natural increase in demand, which resulted in new construction, and which ALSO resulted in higher rents. If housing in Ithaca had kept up with demand prices would not have exceeded inflation and quality of the unit.
  - Alex3917 11y ago
    > Both the students at Cornell and Ithaca university got wealthier, and more people moved to the area/stayed as a result of the schools expanding over the last 20 years. Evidence? In the last ten years the typical apartment in Ithaca has gone from $550/mo to $1500/mo, which seems far in excess of the extra 1,500 people or so spread across the city, especially given they've been building new apartments like crazy the entire time.
    - LanceH 11y ago
      So you're saying supply went up and they just started charging more and got it?
      - Alex3917 11y ago
        Well that's what I was trying to figure out, but as far as I can see (based on a quick look at their population growth figures) that's basically what happened.
- zyxley 11y ago
  You seem to be assuming that new housing caused a rise in rents, while ignoring that the reason substantial new housing is built in a short period somewhere is because people want to move there. If a lot of people want to move somewhere, rents will rise with or without new housing!
- macspoofing 11y ago
  >About 20 years ago they began densifying like crazy. 2-3 story houses for 8 people became 8-floor apartments and studios. And you know what? Rent is higher than ever! Everywhere! So developers started building houses, which caused more people want to move there and rising rent prices? You sure you have the right cause and effect there? It sounds like 20 years ago demand for housing prices started to rise and the supply never kept up.

Kalium 11y ago

Today's new building for the "rich" is tomorrow's housing for the poor.

Eric_WVGG 11y ago
Nice quip. So what? Are you suggesting that today’s “rich” shouldn’t build homes with marble countertops because that will someday in the unforeseeable future be somehow absorbed by the “poor”?
- TheCoelacanth 11y ago
  No, the suggestion is that something that discourages building new homes for the rich now, will also have the future impact of reducing the amount of housing available for the poor. A building that houses rich people today could easily house middle class people in 25 years and poor people in 50 years as it becomes less desirable as it ages.

guimarin 11y ago

This viewpoint is 100% not supported with evidence from any jurisdiction on the planet. The only way to lower rents/costs for the poor without disastrous social consequences is to increase supply of market rate units. There is not other solution which works.