5 ms·

Sorry, but that makes no sense. Skyscrapers are a stopgap measure that shortly lowers prices, which only serves to get more people into town if demand stays the

Sorry, but that makes no sense. Skyscrapers are a stopgap measure that shortly lowers prices, which only serves to get more people into town if demand stays the same (and creating more demand: everyone needs a hairdresser, a school, a supermarket). In that way, it only increases people density, which is the main fuel of gentrification. Point in case: Look at the cities with the highest skyscraper density (New York, Tokio, ...) - are they the cheapest cities or the most expensive? Heck, even Frankfurt (nicknamed Mainhattan for its skyline) is more expensive than Berlin. On top, infrastructure can't keep up with the vertical stacking of people, so you grind to a halt in public transport and on the streets. Berlin gets it totally right. Prices will increase either way and lead to a nash equilibrium. If I'd want to live in a concrete hellhole, I'd move somewhere else.

k__ 10y ago
Luckily they're a state and not part of one. So they can do pretty muchvas they please.
archytech 10y ago
Sorry, but that makes no sense. You set up some weird strawman about skyscrapers, do you have anything to back up your claims? Housing units, population, jobs, and desirability of the area is what drives housing unit prices. Increasing the supply will always ease affordability. Restrictions on development, and NIMBYism is what destroys the cost of living and development in cities. But these cities still aren't building to the pace of their population growth. To achieve price reductions, these cities would need to implement an open market, deregulating land so that housing supply can meet demand. Assuming that urbanites view this as some crackpot right-wing solution--'Reaganomics', according to one San Francisco politician--they should look at Tokyo, where it's actually being tried. In Minato ward — a desirable 20 sq km slice of central Tokyo — the population is up 66 per cent over the past 20 years, from 145,000 to 241,000, an increase of about 100,000 residents. In the 121 sq km of San Francisco, the population grew by about the same number over 20 years, from 746,000 to 865,000 — a rise of 16 per cent. Yet whereas the price of a home in San Francisco and London has increased 231 per cent and 441 per cent respectively, Minato ward has absorbed its population boom with price rises of just 45 per cent. https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbeyer/2016/08/12/tokyos-affordable-housing-strategy-build-build-build/#5064ef648d57 https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbeyer/2016/08/12/tokyos-af...
- the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
  > Housing units, population, jobs, and desirability of the area is what drives housing unit prices. Increasing the supply will always ease affordability. Within that price range. Skyscraper flats in many European cities are at such a high starting price that they might put a downwards pressure on really expensive flats but do nothing for the average person. The cost of building a flat in a Skyscraper are significantly higher than the cost of a flat in a 7 story building.
  - kjksf 10y ago
    I used to live in Seattle in 20-something story building, paying $1250/month for 1 bedroom apt. In San Francisco, a similar apt. is $3000+. Clearly, the cost of building the skyscraper is such that the developer can earn their money at $1250/month. Not cheap but most standards but also not insanely expensive as SF. The issue in SF is not that we're building 7 story buildings instead of 30 story buildings but that it's hard to get approval for 4 story building unless you promise to sell 125% of capacity for below-market rates and even if you do, there will be neighborhood organization bad mouthing every project at best and suing you under any pretext they can at worst. Even if they eventually loose the lawsuit, they'll successfully delay construction.
    - the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
      > Clearly, the cost of building the skyscraper is such that the developer can earn their money at $1250/month. I can't talk about your house obviously but the vast majority of Skyscraper in Europe have economics where the bulk of the investment cost is carried by expensive flats and not cheap ones. So yes, some people might have cheap flats but that does not mean that you can take the unit count of the Skyscraper and say "N cheap flats". If you take the Triiiple in Vienna for instance the current quoted costs are 3500 euro per square meter purchasing price for the cheapest flats going up to 9000 euro per square meter for higher up floors. And the Triiiple is considered one of the more affordable projects.
  - archytech 10y ago
    Skyscraper flats ... are at such a high starting price that they might put a downwards pressure on really expensive flats but do nothing for the average person. False. Without new units, the occupants of the (unbuilt) new luxury units would simply be driving out the occupants of other (more affordable) spaces in older units.
wbl 10y ago
They are. NYC has massive cheap apartment blocks built with public funds. The suburbs of Long Island and Weschester use land much less efficiently and are more expensive. Notice how Soviet Russia made apartment blocks: per unit construction costs might be higher, but transit and land gets used more effectively.

k__ 10y ago

Luckily they're a state and not part of one. So they can do pretty muchvas they please.

archytech 10y ago

Sorry, but that makes no sense. You set up some weird strawman about skyscrapers, do you have anything to back up your claims? Housing units, population, jobs, and desirability of the area is what drives housing unit prices. Increasing the supply will always ease affordability. Restrictions on development, and NIMBYism is what destroys the cost of living and development in cities. But these cities still aren't building to the pace of their population growth. To achieve price reductions, these cities would need to implement an open market, deregulating land so that housing supply can meet demand. Assuming that urbanites view this as some crackpot right-wing solution--'Reaganomics', according to one San Francisco politician--they should look at Tokyo, where it's actually being tried. In Minato ward — a desirable 20 sq km slice of central Tokyo — the population is up 66 per cent over the past 20 years, from 145,000 to 241,000, an increase of about 100,000 residents. In the 121 sq km of San Francisco, the population grew by about the same number over 20 years, from 746,000 to 865,000 — a rise of 16 per cent. Yet whereas the price of a home in San Francisco and London has increased 231 per cent and 441 per cent respectively, Minato ward has absorbed its population boom with price rises of just 45 per cent. https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbeyer/2016/08/12/tokyos-affordable-housing-strategy-build-build-build/#5064ef648d57 https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbeyer/2016/08/12/tokyos-af...

the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
> Housing units, population, jobs, and desirability of the area is what drives housing unit prices. Increasing the supply will always ease affordability. Within that price range. Skyscraper flats in many European cities are at such a high starting price that they might put a downwards pressure on really expensive flats but do nothing for the average person. The cost of building a flat in a Skyscraper are significantly higher than the cost of a flat in a 7 story building.
- kjksf 10y ago
  I used to live in Seattle in 20-something story building, paying $1250/month for 1 bedroom apt. In San Francisco, a similar apt. is $3000+. Clearly, the cost of building the skyscraper is such that the developer can earn their money at $1250/month. Not cheap but most standards but also not insanely expensive as SF. The issue in SF is not that we're building 7 story buildings instead of 30 story buildings but that it's hard to get approval for 4 story building unless you promise to sell 125% of capacity for below-market rates and even if you do, there will be neighborhood organization bad mouthing every project at best and suing you under any pretext they can at worst. Even if they eventually loose the lawsuit, they'll successfully delay construction.
  - the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
    > Clearly, the cost of building the skyscraper is such that the developer can earn their money at $1250/month. I can't talk about your house obviously but the vast majority of Skyscraper in Europe have economics where the bulk of the investment cost is carried by expensive flats and not cheap ones. So yes, some people might have cheap flats but that does not mean that you can take the unit count of the Skyscraper and say "N cheap flats". If you take the Triiiple in Vienna for instance the current quoted costs are 3500 euro per square meter purchasing price for the cheapest flats going up to 9000 euro per square meter for higher up floors. And the Triiiple is considered one of the more affordable projects.
- archytech 10y ago
  Skyscraper flats ... are at such a high starting price that they might put a downwards pressure on really expensive flats but do nothing for the average person. False. Without new units, the occupants of the (unbuilt) new luxury units would simply be driving out the occupants of other (more affordable) spaces in older units.

wbl 10y ago

They are. NYC has massive cheap apartment blocks built with public funds. The suburbs of Long Island and Weschester use land much less efficiently and are more expensive. Notice how Soviet Russia made apartment blocks: per unit construction costs might be higher, but transit and land gets used more effectively.