4 ms·

In the early 1920's NYC was building 100,000 apartments per year. Then government interfered and created the shortage: From Harvard Economist Edward Glaeser:

In the early 1920's NYC was building 100,000 apartments per year. Then government interfered and created the shortage: From Harvard Economist Edward Glaeser: "...Radically upping that supply would leave far more New Yorkers able to rent something for a reasonable price on the free market, instead of allowing rents to continue to rise for most while a select few win access, via waitlists and lotteries, to a separate class of apartments at below-market rates. Once upon a time, New York City understood this. In the early 1920s, we were building 100,000 new housing units, accessible to people across the economic spectrum, every year. As a result, the booming city remained affordable to working- and middle-class people like my grandparents. How was this possible? For one, the city’s regulations back then were relatively modest, focusing primarily on safety and light. Thanks in no small part to that limited red tape, the cost of producing new units was relatively low, and — surprise, surprise — they got built." (The article continues) http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/build-big-bill-article-1.1913739 http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/build-big-bill-article-1....

kafkaesq 10y ago
This is at best a cartoon-like oversimplification of the actual state of affairs. For one thing, one of the main facts of live which characterized the 1920s was that of a massive credit (and speculation) bubble, particularly in housing starts -- the collapse of which led to the onset of this thing known as the Great Depression. For another, most of the land hitherto occupied by those 1920s apartment buildings was at the time either vacant, or occupied by dwellings of extremely low density (farm cottages or light industry). And a whole bunch of other factors. Bottom line, anyone who thinks that if only we could just "cut the red tape" we could start building 100,000 apartments a year again in the NYC of 2016 is engaging in more than a bit of wishful thinking.
- davidf18 10y ago
  The author of the article is also author of https://www.amazon.com/Triumph-City-Greatest-Invention-Healthier/dp/0143120549 https://www.amazon.com/Triumph-City-Greatest-Invention-Healt... He is an expert on cities. I live in NYC and much of Manhattan is low density (4 story brownstones). It may not be building 100,000 apts. per year, but it would be far, far greater number than what is being built today.
  - kafkaesq 10y ago
    So are you suggesting we rip out (all but the upper-crust of) the brownstones, and put in glass boxes as high as we can build them? And that even if we did -- that there would realistically be any way to ensure that even a significant portion of these would be affordable -- without a good heaping dose of, you know, coercion (courtesy of your pals on the left)? I'm not sure what you're advocating, actually.
    - davidf18 10y ago
      > "I'm not sure what you're advocating, actually." If you read the Edward Glaeser article, that's what I'm advocating. Briefly, by simply eliminating the rent-seeking laws of zoning density restrictions and also eliminating overuse of historic landmark status, market forces will take care of the rest. Removing the market inefficiencies will ensure that market forces turn unproductive land or low productivity land into more productive land in terms of housing. Edward Glaeser: Build Big Bill http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/build-big-bill-article-1.1913739 http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/build-big-bill-article-1....
      - kafkaesq 10y ago
        Briefly, by simply eliminating the rent-seeking laws of zoning density restrictions and also eliminating overuse of historic landmark status, market forces will take care of the rest. Unfortunately he doesn't make a coherent argument that will actually happen (other than, more or less: "Just close your eyes and pretend it's 1920 again. Or OK, if that doesn't work, pretend that Manhattan is just like Atlanta or Houston.") Completely ignoring the fact that a whole host of fundamental factors have completely changed in the intervening time; and the rather obvious negative side effects of some of the measure he proposes, as well (like "drastically raising building limits" and its actual effect on median rents in surrounding neighborhoods, for example). I mean, sure he's a respected academic, and all. But he's just not making a coherent argument.

kafkaesq 10y ago

This is at best a cartoon-like oversimplification of the actual state of affairs. For one thing, one of the main facts of live which characterized the 1920s was that of a massive credit (and speculation) bubble, particularly in housing starts -- the collapse of which led to the onset of this thing known as the Great Depression. For another, most of the land hitherto occupied by those 1920s apartment buildings was at the time either vacant, or occupied by dwellings of extremely low density (farm cottages or light industry). And a whole bunch of other factors. Bottom line, anyone who thinks that if only we could just "cut the red tape" we could start building 100,000 apartments a year again in the NYC of 2016 is engaging in more than a bit of wishful thinking.

davidf18 10y ago
The author of the article is also author of https://www.amazon.com/Triumph-City-Greatest-Invention-Healthier/dp/0143120549 https://www.amazon.com/Triumph-City-Greatest-Invention-Healt... He is an expert on cities. I live in NYC and much of Manhattan is low density (4 story brownstones). It may not be building 100,000 apts. per year, but it would be far, far greater number than what is being built today.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  So are you suggesting we rip out (all but the upper-crust of) the brownstones, and put in glass boxes as high as we can build them? And that even if we did -- that there would realistically be any way to ensure that even a significant portion of these would be affordable -- without a good heaping dose of, you know, coercion (courtesy of your pals on the left)? I'm not sure what you're advocating, actually.
  - davidf18 10y ago
    > "I'm not sure what you're advocating, actually." If you read the Edward Glaeser article, that's what I'm advocating. Briefly, by simply eliminating the rent-seeking laws of zoning density restrictions and also eliminating overuse of historic landmark status, market forces will take care of the rest. Removing the market inefficiencies will ensure that market forces turn unproductive land or low productivity land into more productive land in terms of housing. Edward Glaeser: Build Big Bill http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/build-big-bill-article-1.1913739 http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/build-big-bill-article-1....
    - kafkaesq 10y ago
      Briefly, by simply eliminating the rent-seeking laws of zoning density restrictions and also eliminating overuse of historic landmark status, market forces will take care of the rest. Unfortunately he doesn't make a coherent argument that will actually happen (other than, more or less: "Just close your eyes and pretend it's 1920 again. Or OK, if that doesn't work, pretend that Manhattan is just like Atlanta or Houston.") Completely ignoring the fact that a whole host of fundamental factors have completely changed in the intervening time; and the rather obvious negative side effects of some of the measure he proposes, as well (like "drastically raising building limits" and its actual effect on median rents in surrounding neighborhoods, for example). I mean, sure he's a respected academic, and all. But he's just not making a coherent argument.