5 ms·

If there's a housing crisis in Germany, it's entirely the fault of politics. There should be lots of investors in German housing construction projects, given

If there's a housing crisis in Germany, it's entirely the fault of politics. There should be lots of investors in German housing construction projects, given Germany's comparatively low property quote, increasing urban population, and low general interest rates. What turns investors away is the asymetric legal situation unduely favouring the renter's over the owner's interests (I hear in Sweden it's even worse). That, plus excessive laws for energy efficiency that seem to be dictated by the construction industry to drive up initial and ongoing cost. The SPD party's answer is new laws limiting rents (without also attempting to cut down on costs). They shure don't understand how to let the market work for you.

izacus 10y ago
On the other hand that keeps the quality of life higher for people living in the cities. It's a balancing act between landlord profits and the promise of stability to the citizens. Cities aren't only optimizing for profits of the investors (realtively few people), but also for making life in the city itself happy. And by responses of people moving to Berlin, they're doing something right.
- tannhaeuser 10y ago
  It's not about profits for investors so much as it is about a self-sustainable housing economy. Comments like yours, and SPD policies always paint a juvenile "bad investors vs the working class" picture. In reality, investment in housing has always been attractive for smaller investors (eg. Grandma's rent). Especially since the ECB has been keeping interest rates low for the debt-ridden PIGS economies not to collapse. Look at the not-too-distant future, the demographics being what they are. What sustainable investment is there if you have a bit of money to spend for your old days? The problem the SPD is trying to solve with rent-limiting laws will come back massively in ten years time with the then-old generation not having enough to sustain themselves.
  - izacus 10y ago
    Noone is painting investors as bad, but it seems that like a lot of people in this thread you're looking at apartments (living space of citizens of a city) as an investment and not as a basic prerequirement for someone to actually live in a city.
    - tannhaeuser 10y ago
      Of course it's an investment; always has been. Living space doesn't grow on trees (in Europe at least), and is extremely expensive to create and maintain. The quarters seeing "gentrification" (with their social status-indicating details such as stucko) were always attracting a bourgoise elite (its why they exist in the first place). It's all a question to make economy work for the people. Saying goodbye to reality does no one good.
      - izacus 10y ago
        But noone is saying you should say goodbye to reality. But precisely BECAUSE it doesn't grow on trees, the cities shouldn't optimize for maximum investment value of real estate, but they should optimize for maximum living space and quality of life potential for their citizens. Empty apartments in city center used as a dumping ground for money are of no use to anyone but a select rich few individuals.
      - kuschku 10y ago
        But it shouldn’t be an investment. And you really shouldn’t expect to do that – you likely won’t make a profit in Germany. The only ones who can reasonably invest in rental space are housing cooperatives, which control the majority of the market.
- anothercomment 10y ago
  Looking at New York, it seems to me building taller houses with more flats does not automatically make a city less worthy of living in it. And living in Berlin, I can tell you that not being able to move to another flat because of high prices, and wondering how long I may still be able to afford living here, doesn't make me very happy.
  - TillE 10y ago
    > not being able to move to another flat because of high prices Berlin's "high prices" are less than half of what you'd pay in, say, the unfashionable parts of Brooklyn.
    - anothercomment 10y ago
      Sure, but you can not directly compare prices, you also have to take earning opportunities into account. And your example only supports my point, NYC seems to be even more attractive despite of the skyscrapers.
92138791 10y ago
If I look around me, a significant percentage of people's income is already going into housing, healthcare and taxes. The money that is left is used to buy some Ikea furniture, pacifiers^Wgadgets like phones and TVs and perhaps a vacation once a year. In other words, just enough disposable income so that people don't revolt. How can there be an efficient and actually free market for housing? At the very least, people should be allowed to build slums, otherwise they do not have any leverage to drive prices down by opting out of an overpriced market.

izacus 10y ago

On the other hand that keeps the quality of life higher for people living in the cities. It's a balancing act between landlord profits and the promise of stability to the citizens. Cities aren't only optimizing for profits of the investors (realtively few people), but also for making life in the city itself happy. And by responses of people moving to Berlin, they're doing something right.

tannhaeuser 10y ago
It's not about profits for investors so much as it is about a self-sustainable housing economy. Comments like yours, and SPD policies always paint a juvenile "bad investors vs the working class" picture. In reality, investment in housing has always been attractive for smaller investors (eg. Grandma's rent). Especially since the ECB has been keeping interest rates low for the debt-ridden PIGS economies not to collapse. Look at the not-too-distant future, the demographics being what they are. What sustainable investment is there if you have a bit of money to spend for your old days? The problem the SPD is trying to solve with rent-limiting laws will come back massively in ten years time with the then-old generation not having enough to sustain themselves.
- izacus 10y ago
  Noone is painting investors as bad, but it seems that like a lot of people in this thread you're looking at apartments (living space of citizens of a city) as an investment and not as a basic prerequirement for someone to actually live in a city.
  - tannhaeuser 10y ago
    Of course it's an investment; always has been. Living space doesn't grow on trees (in Europe at least), and is extremely expensive to create and maintain. The quarters seeing "gentrification" (with their social status-indicating details such as stucko) were always attracting a bourgoise elite (its why they exist in the first place). It's all a question to make economy work for the people. Saying goodbye to reality does no one good.
    - izacus 10y ago
      But noone is saying you should say goodbye to reality. But precisely BECAUSE it doesn't grow on trees, the cities shouldn't optimize for maximum investment value of real estate, but they should optimize for maximum living space and quality of life potential for their citizens. Empty apartments in city center used as a dumping ground for money are of no use to anyone but a select rich few individuals.
    - kuschku 10y ago
      But it shouldn’t be an investment. And you really shouldn’t expect to do that – you likely won’t make a profit in Germany. The only ones who can reasonably invest in rental space are housing cooperatives, which control the majority of the market.
anothercomment 10y ago
Looking at New York, it seems to me building taller houses with more flats does not automatically make a city less worthy of living in it. And living in Berlin, I can tell you that not being able to move to another flat because of high prices, and wondering how long I may still be able to afford living here, doesn't make me very happy.
- TillE 10y ago
  > not being able to move to another flat because of high prices Berlin's "high prices" are less than half of what you'd pay in, say, the unfashionable parts of Brooklyn.
  - anothercomment 10y ago
    Sure, but you can not directly compare prices, you also have to take earning opportunities into account. And your example only supports my point, NYC seems to be even more attractive despite of the skyscrapers.

92138791 10y ago

If I look around me, a significant percentage of people's income is already going into housing, healthcare and taxes. The money that is left is used to buy some Ikea furniture, pacifiers^Wgadgets like phones and TVs and perhaps a vacation once a year. In other words, just enough disposable income so that people don't revolt. How can there be an efficient and actually free market for housing? At the very least, people should be allowed to build slums, otherwise they do not have any leverage to drive prices down by opting out of an overpriced market.