5 ms·

Population growth can increase demand everywhere at once. And affordable housing away from a high demand urban center is no use to anyone and not going to attr

Population growth can increase demand everywhere at once. And affordable housing away from a high demand urban center is no use to anyone and not going to attract anyone if there aren’t good jobs there.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> Population growth can increase demand everywhere at once. But where is the extra population coming from? If you're talking about any other place, it reduces housing costs in that place. If you're talking about a rise in birthrates, that's theoretically possible (though by no means guaranteed), but the timescale is so long that there is plenty of time to build even more housing by then. > And affordable housing away from a high demand urban center is no use to anyone and not going to attract anyone if there aren’t good jobs there. Where do you expect the people to be coming from? If it's another city, that's still an urban center with jobs. If it's the suburbs, people can still live there and work in the city as they do now. And they can't be from the middle of farm country because there aren't enough people there to be a major source of demand, even before accounting for the fact that they would have to both want to move to the city and be able to afford to.
- cimmanom 8y ago
  Birthdates don’t have to rise for population to increase. For instance, our global population is expected to continue to rise for the next couple decades even as birth rates fall because life expectancy is rising. Yes, the US is currently below replacement rate (without immigration), but if birth rates 20 years ago were higher than the current death rate, demand for housing will be increasing. As for where people are moving from other than farm country, there are plenty of economically struggling cities, towns, and suburbs.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    > Birthdates don’t have to rise for population to increase. For instance, our global population is expected to continue to rise for the next couple decades even as birth rates fall because life expectancy is rising. Yes, the US is currently below replacement rate (without immigration), but if birth rates 20 years ago were higher than the current death rate, demand for housing will be increasing. The relevant numbers are relative to the status quo, not relative to zero. If we are expecting rising housing costs due to rising population, a method of lowering hosting costs is productive even if it only reduces the rate of price growth, since the alternative would be for prices to be even higher. The only problem is if the method can itself cause population growth, e.g. by short-term lower housing costs allowing more people to afford to start a family. But that's the thing we have plenty of time to stay ahead of by continuing to build more housing. > As for where people are moving from other than farm country, there are plenty of economically struggling cities, towns, and suburbs. Except that they're in the same position as farm country. There aren't that many people there anymore -- Detroit has already lost more than 60% of its population since 1950 -- and the people who are there can't afford the cost of living in an expensive urban center. The people who move into the city center when new housing opens up are predominantly the people who used to live in that city's suburbs. Your argument would also imply a strong case for "economically struggling cities, towns, and suburbs" to eliminate density restrictions and attract economy-boosting density-preferring people to locations where housing is already more affordable.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago

> Population growth can increase demand everywhere at once. But where is the extra population coming from? If you're talking about any other place, it reduces housing costs in that place. If you're talking about a rise in birthrates, that's theoretically possible (though by no means guaranteed), but the timescale is so long that there is plenty of time to build even more housing by then. > And affordable housing away from a high demand urban center is no use to anyone and not going to attract anyone if there aren’t good jobs there. Where do you expect the people to be coming from? If it's another city, that's still an urban center with jobs. If it's the suburbs, people can still live there and work in the city as they do now. And they can't be from the middle of farm country because there aren't enough people there to be a major source of demand, even before accounting for the fact that they would have to both want to move to the city and be able to afford to.

cimmanom 8y ago
Birthdates don’t have to rise for population to increase. For instance, our global population is expected to continue to rise for the next couple decades even as birth rates fall because life expectancy is rising. Yes, the US is currently below replacement rate (without immigration), but if birth rates 20 years ago were higher than the current death rate, demand for housing will be increasing. As for where people are moving from other than farm country, there are plenty of economically struggling cities, towns, and suburbs.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > Birthdates don’t have to rise for population to increase. For instance, our global population is expected to continue to rise for the next couple decades even as birth rates fall because life expectancy is rising. Yes, the US is currently below replacement rate (without immigration), but if birth rates 20 years ago were higher than the current death rate, demand for housing will be increasing. The relevant numbers are relative to the status quo, not relative to zero. If we are expecting rising housing costs due to rising population, a method of lowering hosting costs is productive even if it only reduces the rate of price growth, since the alternative would be for prices to be even higher. The only problem is if the method can itself cause population growth, e.g. by short-term lower housing costs allowing more people to afford to start a family. But that's the thing we have plenty of time to stay ahead of by continuing to build more housing. > As for where people are moving from other than farm country, there are plenty of economically struggling cities, towns, and suburbs. Except that they're in the same position as farm country. There aren't that many people there anymore -- Detroit has already lost more than 60% of its population since 1950 -- and the people who are there can't afford the cost of living in an expensive urban center. The people who move into the city center when new housing opens up are predominantly the people who used to live in that city's suburbs. Your argument would also imply a strong case for "economically struggling cities, towns, and suburbs" to eliminate density restrictions and attract economy-boosting density-preferring people to locations where housing is already more affordable.