6 ms·

My wife has been on the list since she was born 27 years ago. I don't particularly have a problem with the system. It's Stockholm. Either this way and reasonabl

My wife has been on the list since she was born 27 years ago. I don't particularly have a problem with the system. It's Stockholm. Either this way and reasonable rent, or rent would be totally fuckin' crazy.

davidw 10y ago
Being Europe, I'm sure it's fairly dense already, and likely there are decent sized areas that are historical and can't be touched, but perhaps with higher rents there would be more incentive to add to the housing supply?
- mickronome 10y ago
  The city center is almost all historical buildings except for a few parts where those have been torn down a few decades ago - something that left a very bitter aftertaste, it created what csn only be described as open sores in the city core that hasn't really healed yet - although it has started to get there in the last few years. People in Stockholm generally don't vote for the people that want to build public/rent controlled housing, so there is no mystery there is a shortage. It has also been enormously lucrative to own your home the last 25-30 years or so as the interest has plummeted from 8% to 1.5-2%, so almost all rentals has been converted to bostadrätter (a kind of co-operative building society apartment) which you have to buy in to. To me it sounds like Spotify and many other tech startups are just being babies and not trying to solve their own problems - they want to be in Stockholm because it is an attractive place to live, but they don't want their employees to have to pay for the fact that the city is attractive ? Tough luck.
  - davidw 10y ago
    > but they don't want their employees to have to pay for the fact that the city is attractive ? Tough luck. I'd be kind of incensed if I were stuck paying black market rates, too.
  - gozur88 10y ago
    It seems like over time the city will become a retirement community as employers move out in search of areas that are easier for new hires to settle.
mywittyname 10y ago
I prefer this system too. Forcing people out by jacking up rent prices is the capitalist's solution, but not a good solution when applied to housing, IMHO. Why should people who've lived their entire life in a region be forced out because somebody with more money comes along? You can't pay a bunch of money and force a poorer person out of the hospital. "Sorry, but we're full" is a completely valid response if maintaining affordable housing is more important than accommodating fervorous growth.
- jpttsn 10y ago
  > Why should people who've lived their entire life in a region be forced out because somebody with more money comes along Why should a store that has had groceries all day be forced to give away their groceries when someone with more money comes along?
  - cousin_it 10y ago
    Which of these sounds better to you: 1) Starving Alice buys a loaf of bread for 1 dollar and obtains 10 units of happiness. 2) Rich Bob buys a loaf of bread for 10 dollars and obtains 1 unit of happiness.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      Thing is, in this case Alice might still be starving because Bob got earlier in line and went home with the $1 price-controlled loaf of bread, having saved the $9 to spend on luxuries.
    - jpttsn 10y ago
      I'm not a utilitarian. If I'm not personally Alice or Bob, I don't care.
  - mywittyname 10y ago
    Your statement makes no sense. To use your example in the same vein, why should people be forced to starve because somebody with more money bought up all the food in the region? Oh, and they get to raid their pantries too, but instead of paying the person for the food they get from the pantry, they pay the grocery store they bought it from. Some people think it's perfectly fine to feed the rich first and let the poor have the scraps. That is the essence of capitalism: scarce goods are distributed based on the willingness to pay. But it's perfectly valid for a society to reject this notion.
charlesdm 10y ago
I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but don't you think 27 years is ridiculous? You'll both have died from old age before you get appointed something. Also, where do you live now then? In a non rent controlled apartment?
- fapjacks 10y ago
  We live in the States. My wife has been able to rent for some years now, but we are waiting until we move there in a couple of years. The longer you wait, the better your selection. I'm totally fine with that system. And yes, if you can't or don't want to be on the list, you live in the suburbs.
  - dilemma 10y ago
    You're only fine with it because you don't live in Stockholm. I had to leave the city and the country because of it.
    - fapjacks 10y ago
      I guess whatever you have to tell yourself. You can read minds and you "had to" leave because of it.
gutnor 10y ago
Exactly, come in London. After 12 years and a salary above average I'm still nowhere near being able to live comfortably in the best areas. Hell, with a kid, I can barely afford the shit area where the school do not suck. There is no magical solution to housing shortage. A waiting list is shit system, but I'm sure the Guinness Book would have no difficulty finding depressing record for rental price in other major cities.
- davidw 10y ago
  > There is no magical solution to housing shortage. Building more houses works pretty well, and has the benefit that no magic wands are required.
  - dijit 10y ago
    Even then, you can't make more transport. You hit a lot more limits quicker when you have absurd populations and sprawl instead of climb.
    - davidw 10y ago
      'Building housing' doesn't specify whether it's vertical or horizontal. My preference runs towards dense and some height. Depends on the place, though.
      - DasIch 10y ago
        You can increase density only so far. It's not like you can just make streets wider or stack them on top of each other. Not to mention all the other infrastructure that you need. In addition to that dense housings can lead to social problems and therefore crime, which is highly undesireable. Especially in Europe you also have the problem of having a lot of old buildings that are protected, so you can't change or replace them. Housing is a very complex problem and supply and demand only gets you so far. If it were really just all about that, places like London, NY and SF would never have become so expensive.
raldi 10y ago
Or you could just build more housing.

davidw 10y ago

Being Europe, I'm sure it's fairly dense already, and likely there are decent sized areas that are historical and can't be touched, but perhaps with higher rents there would be more incentive to add to the housing supply?

mickronome 10y ago
The city center is almost all historical buildings except for a few parts where those have been torn down a few decades ago - something that left a very bitter aftertaste, it created what csn only be described as open sores in the city core that hasn't really healed yet - although it has started to get there in the last few years. People in Stockholm generally don't vote for the people that want to build public/rent controlled housing, so there is no mystery there is a shortage. It has also been enormously lucrative to own your home the last 25-30 years or so as the interest has plummeted from 8% to 1.5-2%, so almost all rentals has been converted to bostadrätter (a kind of co-operative building society apartment) which you have to buy in to. To me it sounds like Spotify and many other tech startups are just being babies and not trying to solve their own problems - they want to be in Stockholm because it is an attractive place to live, but they don't want their employees to have to pay for the fact that the city is attractive ? Tough luck.
- davidw 10y ago
  > but they don't want their employees to have to pay for the fact that the city is attractive ? Tough luck. I'd be kind of incensed if I were stuck paying black market rates, too.
- gozur88 10y ago
  It seems like over time the city will become a retirement community as employers move out in search of areas that are easier for new hires to settle.

mywittyname 10y ago

I prefer this system too. Forcing people out by jacking up rent prices is the capitalist's solution, but not a good solution when applied to housing, IMHO. Why should people who've lived their entire life in a region be forced out because somebody with more money comes along? You can't pay a bunch of money and force a poorer person out of the hospital. "Sorry, but we're full" is a completely valid response if maintaining affordable housing is more important than accommodating fervorous growth.

jpttsn 10y ago
> Why should people who've lived their entire life in a region be forced out because somebody with more money comes along Why should a store that has had groceries all day be forced to give away their groceries when someone with more money comes along?
- cousin_it 10y ago
  Which of these sounds better to you: 1) Starving Alice buys a loaf of bread for 1 dollar and obtains 10 units of happiness. 2) Rich Bob buys a loaf of bread for 10 dollars and obtains 1 unit of happiness.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    Thing is, in this case Alice might still be starving because Bob got earlier in line and went home with the $1 price-controlled loaf of bread, having saved the $9 to spend on luxuries.
  - jpttsn 10y ago
    I'm not a utilitarian. If I'm not personally Alice or Bob, I don't care.
- mywittyname 10y ago
  Your statement makes no sense. To use your example in the same vein, why should people be forced to starve because somebody with more money bought up all the food in the region? Oh, and they get to raid their pantries too, but instead of paying the person for the food they get from the pantry, they pay the grocery store they bought it from. Some people think it's perfectly fine to feed the rich first and let the poor have the scraps. That is the essence of capitalism: scarce goods are distributed based on the willingness to pay. But it's perfectly valid for a society to reject this notion.

charlesdm 10y ago

I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but don't you think 27 years is ridiculous? You'll both have died from old age before you get appointed something. Also, where do you live now then? In a non rent controlled apartment?

fapjacks 10y ago
We live in the States. My wife has been able to rent for some years now, but we are waiting until we move there in a couple of years. The longer you wait, the better your selection. I'm totally fine with that system. And yes, if you can't or don't want to be on the list, you live in the suburbs.
- dilemma 10y ago
  You're only fine with it because you don't live in Stockholm. I had to leave the city and the country because of it.
  - fapjacks 10y ago
    I guess whatever you have to tell yourself. You can read minds and you "had to" leave because of it.

gutnor 10y ago

Exactly, come in London. After 12 years and a salary above average I'm still nowhere near being able to live comfortably in the best areas. Hell, with a kid, I can barely afford the shit area where the school do not suck. There is no magical solution to housing shortage. A waiting list is shit system, but I'm sure the Guinness Book would have no difficulty finding depressing record for rental price in other major cities.

davidw 10y ago
> There is no magical solution to housing shortage. Building more houses works pretty well, and has the benefit that no magic wands are required.
- dijit 10y ago
  Even then, you can't make more transport. You hit a lot more limits quicker when you have absurd populations and sprawl instead of climb.
  - davidw 10y ago
    'Building housing' doesn't specify whether it's vertical or horizontal. My preference runs towards dense and some height. Depends on the place, though.
    - DasIch 10y ago
      You can increase density only so far. It's not like you can just make streets wider or stack them on top of each other. Not to mention all the other infrastructure that you need. In addition to that dense housings can lead to social problems and therefore crime, which is highly undesireable. Especially in Europe you also have the problem of having a lot of old buildings that are protected, so you can't change or replace them. Housing is a very complex problem and supply and demand only gets you so far. If it were really just all about that, places like London, NY and SF would never have become so expensive.

raldi 10y ago

Or you could just build more housing.