4 ms·

> I don't really understand the opposite logic, which the NIMBYs like to use, saying that building new housing will drive the price up. It actually fits the "l

> I don't really understand the opposite logic, which the NIMBYs like to use, saying that building new housing will drive the price up. It actually fits the "logic" of the model you mentioned. If you build more housing, the city "sucks less", more people want to live there, so the price goes up. This is especially true with modern development, since it exclusively builds luxury units, which make that part of the city really suck less, and therefore drives prices really high, really fast. -- Sure, in the very long run, building new housing lowers prices. But in all short-to-medium timeframes, new housing greatly increases all housing prices in the particular area development occurs, which is why you get so many local residents (even renters) opposed to it.

rspeer 9y ago
It would seem to me that, even in that case, building new housing increases the housing price in that local area, while not building new housing increases the housing price everywhere. Is there an alternative plan to make housing prices decrease? The long term is at least better than never. I know there's the whole thing where you designate certain units as subsidized affordable housing and have people on a lottery/waiting-list to get it, and having some of that probably helps in the short term, but at least in Cambridge the subsidies are becoming unsustainable. Even people making six figures end up needing subsidized housing.
- nradov 9y ago
  One alternative plan would be to subsidize economic development in underpopulated cities. It's not healthy for our societies long term to squeeze everyone into just a few geographically constrained areas.
kevinburke 9y ago
The phenomenon you’re describing perfectly describes “we are adding new supply but not enough to keep up with demand” and I think you’re getting the causation wrong. The California LAO has published reports showing areas with more new housing had less displacement, for example.

rspeer 9y ago

It would seem to me that, even in that case, building new housing increases the housing price in that local area, while not building new housing increases the housing price everywhere. Is there an alternative plan to make housing prices decrease? The long term is at least better than never. I know there's the whole thing where you designate certain units as subsidized affordable housing and have people on a lottery/waiting-list to get it, and having some of that probably helps in the short term, but at least in Cambridge the subsidies are becoming unsustainable. Even people making six figures end up needing subsidized housing.

nradov 9y ago
One alternative plan would be to subsidize economic development in underpopulated cities. It's not healthy for our societies long term to squeeze everyone into just a few geographically constrained areas.

kevinburke 9y ago

The phenomenon you’re describing perfectly describes “we are adding new supply but not enough to keep up with demand” and I think you’re getting the causation wrong. The California LAO has published reports showing areas with more new housing had less displacement, for example.