4 ms·

Its a great example of how just building more housing isn't a complete solution, because all builders are going to target the top of the market if they at all c

by throwaway2048 8y ago

Its a great example of how just building more housing isn't a complete solution, because all builders are going to target the top of the market if they at all can.

manfredo 8y ago
No. The price of housing is not determined by the builder. Like any good its price is driven by what people are willing to pay. Here in SF, even 230 square foot studios are considered "luxury housing" because the shortage of housing is that extreme. Any new construction commands a premium over old housing. In effect, restrictions on building more "luxury housing" restricts the construction of most new housing even if it is high density. Building more housing, and giving incentives to build as much housing as possible is indeed a complete solution.
- throwaway2048 8y ago
  Tell that to china https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19171099 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19171099 They have something like 65 MILLION excess, unused apartments, almost exclusively targeting the luxury market (because they are created and valued as investment first, housing second), and they still have extreme affordability issues. Building more housing is absolutely not a complete solution.
  - whatok 8y ago
    I really don't think it's fair to compare China's housing policies to the United States' policies as they couldn't be more different.
    - throwaway2048 8y ago
      Of course there are differences, merely pointing out if building more housing, even building more housing to an almost comically absurd extent solved affordability issues by themselves, China wouldn't have them.
      - whatok 8y ago
        I still don't see your point. No one acts as if housing supply is a magical fix-all to affordability. Almost all housing issues in America are caused by multiple factors and New York is no different.
  - manfredo 8y ago
    Much of those houses in China are not built in desirable cities but in ghost town that have little to no people living in them. There aren't million of chronically vacant units in Shenzhen. One could just as easily point to vacant houses outside Detroit. Housing isn't just about the number of houses in a given country. It's about having available housing where the demand is growing.
briandear 8y ago
They target the top because the regulatory environment is such that it’s too costly to target middle and lower range properties. In places like Houston, there are tons of “normal” places being built. With land prices in places like New York and requirements to subsidize “affordable” units within the building, that necessarily means the market rate apartments have to be much more expensive to compensate. In Houston, there is no such thing as “affordable” set-asides because their isn’t a need for it. Houston also doesn’t set aside thousands of acres of prime land as “open space preserves” like they do in the Bay Area, further constricting available land. We can debate the quality of life value of “open space;” it would be a fair debate, but you can’t have lots of available but politically unbuildable land while simultaneously lamenting the lack of affordable housing.

Its a great example of how just building more housing isn't a complete solution, because all builders are going to target the top of the market if they at all can.

manfredo 8y ago

No. The price of housing is not determined by the builder. Like any good its price is driven by what people are willing to pay. Here in SF, even 230 square foot studios are considered "luxury housing" because the shortage of housing is that extreme. Any new construction commands a premium over old housing. In effect, restrictions on building more "luxury housing" restricts the construction of most new housing even if it is high density. Building more housing, and giving incentives to build as much housing as possible is indeed a complete solution.

throwaway2048 8y ago
Tell that to china https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19171099 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19171099 They have something like 65 MILLION excess, unused apartments, almost exclusively targeting the luxury market (because they are created and valued as investment first, housing second), and they still have extreme affordability issues. Building more housing is absolutely not a complete solution.
- whatok 8y ago
  I really don't think it's fair to compare China's housing policies to the United States' policies as they couldn't be more different.
  - throwaway2048 8y ago
    Of course there are differences, merely pointing out if building more housing, even building more housing to an almost comically absurd extent solved affordability issues by themselves, China wouldn't have them.
    - whatok 8y ago
      I still don't see your point. No one acts as if housing supply is a magical fix-all to affordability. Almost all housing issues in America are caused by multiple factors and New York is no different.
- manfredo 8y ago
  Much of those houses in China are not built in desirable cities but in ghost town that have little to no people living in them. There aren't million of chronically vacant units in Shenzhen. One could just as easily point to vacant houses outside Detroit. Housing isn't just about the number of houses in a given country. It's about having available housing where the demand is growing.

briandear 8y ago

They target the top because the regulatory environment is such that it’s too costly to target middle and lower range properties. In places like Houston, there are tons of “normal” places being built. With land prices in places like New York and requirements to subsidize “affordable” units within the building, that necessarily means the market rate apartments have to be much more expensive to compensate. In Houston, there is no such thing as “affordable” set-asides because their isn’t a need for it. Houston also doesn’t set aside thousands of acres of prime land as “open space preserves” like they do in the Bay Area, further constricting available land. We can debate the quality of life value of “open space;” it would be a fair debate, but you can’t have lots of available but politically unbuildable land while simultaneously lamenting the lack of affordable housing.