3 ms·

That greatly depends on the kind of development.

• crooked-v 9y ago
  Not really, as long as the housing isn't going literally empty because of absent Chinese investors or the like.
  • newnewpdro 9y ago
    If the new development is luxury low-density bullshit, it burns finite development space on low-density occupancies while raising average rents because they're expensive on top of it. If this situation also started with the demolition of low-end high-density housing, it compounds in the direction of increased rents. Rents don't go down when a neighborhood gentrifies... How is this not obvious? I get the impression the HN crowd is so solidly in the demographic of the gentrifying forces being overpaid tech folks that these types of discussions will always be strained.
    • seanmcdirmid 9y ago
      The luxury stuff in California is often actually relatively high density, the run-down cheaper places they are replacing are often lower density, so density is still going up. Since after the Johnson era, high density low income housing has been taboo.
    • BurningFrog 9y ago
      You're of course right that if you tear down 50 units and "add" 20, rents will go up. My unstated assumption when writing "new development" was that it's a net addition of new development. I think that was obvious to most, but now I've spelled it out. Aside from that, none of your caveats hold. Even adding high end luxury housing lowers the average rent, compared to if it wasn't added. If you don't understand that, you don't understand basic supply-and-demand economics, and will struggle understanding a lot of what happens in society!