6 ms·

If affordable housing is an issue, then perhaps the government should provide it for its citizens, like building huge high-rises in Berlin. I used to rent in a

If affordable housing is an issue, then perhaps the government should provide it for its citizens, like building huge high-rises in Berlin. I used to rent in an expensive city but bought a cheap house in the suburbs (thankfully I work remotely). Everything is cheaper out here, from gas to utilities to food. But I did experience classism from my friends and family: there is status living in a world-class city. And having wealth or a high-paying job in the city is part of this status. But many people want the status without having to pay the $$$.

tempsolution 7y ago
Last thing I heard, high buildings are mostly infeasible in Berlin due to the unstable underground. You can't build New York everywhere...
- Bombthecat 7y ago
  I doubt that high buildings help, no matter how many people you square per cubic meter, in big cities it will never be enough to allow affordable living...
- odiroot 7y ago
  Yes but we can at least grow the city up to the 6th floor. There's so many building that barely reach the 4th.
- zanny 7y ago
  Japan and Korea have managed to build some of the densest cities in the world on active fault lines. For a first world world power economy like Germany reinforcing prime real estate in their capital in the 21st century is not an infeasible economic obstacle.
wander_homer 7y ago
> But many people want the status without having to pay the $$$ It's not just about the status. Every city needs people who do lower paying jobs. Someone has to clean those office buildings, someone has to take care of sick people at hospitals, someone has to drive taxis, buses, ... By not supplying those people with affordable housing within the city they're lives only become worse (more money and time spent commuting, less time spent with family and friends).
- cyrksoft 7y ago
  > Every city needs people who do lower paying jobs. Someone has to clean those office buildings, someone has to take care of sick people at hospitals, someone has to drive taxis, buses, ... By not supplying those people with affordable housing within the city they're lives only become worse (more money and time spent commuting, less time spent with family and friends). They can live in the suburbs. Nobody has a special right to live in a specific place. They can commute like everybody else.
  - 2ion 7y ago
    The suburbs (literally "bacon belt", wealthy exurbs) are even more expensive (after rapidly getting cheaper after 40-50km out from the city, but 2 hour commutes one way are very hard to sell at German salaries). Plus there's insufficient transport for getting the masses into the city already. Moving people more outwards won't work because these issues may get addressed after 10s of years.
  - claudeganon 7y ago
    This is just literally privatizing the cost of reproducing the city onto its lowest paid workers, i.e., entirely regressive. Why should those guaranteeing the very basic functioning of a place (janitors, firefighters, nurses, etc) bear not only the burden of lower wages, but now also terrible commutes? There’s no sane logic behind this kind of sentiment besides “might makes right,” which is fueling the rise of “eat the rich” populism.
    - codedokode 7y ago
      Then it should be skilled, talented workers who should live in a place without public transport, buy expensive cars and gasoline and spend hours in traffic jams?
      - claudeganon 7y ago
        No. Cities should be invested in and planned to make themselves affordable and accommodating to all of the labor they need to exist, instead of “skilled, talented workers” shoving off all of the misery onto lower wage workers just because they can get away with it. It’s not zero sum. Look at cities in developed countries like Japan, Austria, Singapore, or the less Capitalist parts of Europe.
cyrksoft 7y ago
> Government should provide it for its citizens And how do you expect government to pay for that? How do you decide who lives in these houses? It's not that easy. Government isn't a magic entity.
- zjaffee 7y ago
  One of the biggest costs of new rental construction is financing costs (on a 30 year loan it's often half of the cost). Given that it's cheaper for the government to borrow money than the private sector you can have the government simply build market rate housing, but wouldn't need to charge as much in rent. In this context, the government can essentially be a magic entity.
  - cyrksoft 7y ago
    So you'll force tax payers to pay for it? Government doesn't have free money. Why should people be forced to pay for the construction of such housing?
    - Jotra7 7y ago
      The construction costs would be recouped by the renters. Are you being obtuse on purpose?
    - zjaffee 7y ago
      Tax payers wouldn't have to pay for anything, the only impact would be potentially on credit ratings of the government and possibly also certain interest rates in a minimal way. You can create market rate housing with government subsidized loans that don't come from tax coffers. Hell, the US federal reserve is technically the backer of hundreds of billions worth of mortgages.
      - cyrksoft 7y ago
        We know how the mortgage crisis went. Government isn’t a magical solution.
- 7y ago
mrep 7y ago
> But I did experience classism from my friends and family: there is status living in a world-class city. Can you go more into depth on that because I've never seen that and some of my extended family lives in small cities/farms in the midwest. If anything, they laugh because I pay $300 a month for parking. Then again, maybe chicago/seattle/san francisco aren't status bearing world class cities.
- hashberry 7y ago
  Many people treat their city as the center of the world. NYC is infamous for this. "Flyover states" is a common pejorative classist term. Every tech company sets up offices in large cities not just for the talent, but because people want to live in the city, not in the "boonies" or "in the sticks" with a bunch of "townies."
sgift 7y ago
That's one of the things being done. Problem is that for a while they didn't (that's what happens when you get people who think the market magically fixes things in power) and building new ones takes time. To get that time a stop gap measure was needed, hence freezing prices for five years for existing houses, no price freeze on new houses.
- okr 7y ago
  The "market" would like to fix it. But it is not allowed to. Because, well, politics or: "people in power" :-)
odiroot 7y ago
> If affordable housing is an issue, then perhaps the government should provide it for its citizens We already pay very high taxes in Berlin and not really getting much back from it (police, firefighters, cleaning services, public transit, even government offices are heavily underfunded). This idea would only make the taxes higher or take away much needed money from other areas.
- hashberry 7y ago
  What about issuing bonds and using rent to pay off the bonds?

tempsolution 7y ago

Last thing I heard, high buildings are mostly infeasible in Berlin due to the unstable underground. You can't build New York everywhere...

Bombthecat 7y ago
I doubt that high buildings help, no matter how many people you square per cubic meter, in big cities it will never be enough to allow affordable living...
odiroot 7y ago
Yes but we can at least grow the city up to the 6th floor. There's so many building that barely reach the 4th.
zanny 7y ago
Japan and Korea have managed to build some of the densest cities in the world on active fault lines. For a first world world power economy like Germany reinforcing prime real estate in their capital in the 21st century is not an infeasible economic obstacle.

wander_homer 7y ago

> But many people want the status without having to pay the $$$ It's not just about the status. Every city needs people who do lower paying jobs. Someone has to clean those office buildings, someone has to take care of sick people at hospitals, someone has to drive taxis, buses, ... By not supplying those people with affordable housing within the city they're lives only become worse (more money and time spent commuting, less time spent with family and friends).

cyrksoft 7y ago
> Every city needs people who do lower paying jobs. Someone has to clean those office buildings, someone has to take care of sick people at hospitals, someone has to drive taxis, buses, ... By not supplying those people with affordable housing within the city they're lives only become worse (more money and time spent commuting, less time spent with family and friends). They can live in the suburbs. Nobody has a special right to live in a specific place. They can commute like everybody else.
- 2ion 7y ago
  The suburbs (literally "bacon belt", wealthy exurbs) are even more expensive (after rapidly getting cheaper after 40-50km out from the city, but 2 hour commutes one way are very hard to sell at German salaries). Plus there's insufficient transport for getting the masses into the city already. Moving people more outwards won't work because these issues may get addressed after 10s of years.
- claudeganon 7y ago
  This is just literally privatizing the cost of reproducing the city onto its lowest paid workers, i.e., entirely regressive. Why should those guaranteeing the very basic functioning of a place (janitors, firefighters, nurses, etc) bear not only the burden of lower wages, but now also terrible commutes? There’s no sane logic behind this kind of sentiment besides “might makes right,” which is fueling the rise of “eat the rich” populism.
  - codedokode 7y ago
    Then it should be skilled, talented workers who should live in a place without public transport, buy expensive cars and gasoline and spend hours in traffic jams?
    - claudeganon 7y ago
      No. Cities should be invested in and planned to make themselves affordable and accommodating to all of the labor they need to exist, instead of “skilled, talented workers” shoving off all of the misery onto lower wage workers just because they can get away with it. It’s not zero sum. Look at cities in developed countries like Japan, Austria, Singapore, or the less Capitalist parts of Europe.

cyrksoft 7y ago

> Government should provide it for its citizens And how do you expect government to pay for that? How do you decide who lives in these houses? It's not that easy. Government isn't a magic entity.

zjaffee 7y ago
One of the biggest costs of new rental construction is financing costs (on a 30 year loan it's often half of the cost). Given that it's cheaper for the government to borrow money than the private sector you can have the government simply build market rate housing, but wouldn't need to charge as much in rent. In this context, the government can essentially be a magic entity.
- cyrksoft 7y ago
  So you'll force tax payers to pay for it? Government doesn't have free money. Why should people be forced to pay for the construction of such housing?
  - Jotra7 7y ago
    The construction costs would be recouped by the renters. Are you being obtuse on purpose?
  - zjaffee 7y ago
    Tax payers wouldn't have to pay for anything, the only impact would be potentially on credit ratings of the government and possibly also certain interest rates in a minimal way. You can create market rate housing with government subsidized loans that don't come from tax coffers. Hell, the US federal reserve is technically the backer of hundreds of billions worth of mortgages.
    - cyrksoft 7y ago
      We know how the mortgage crisis went. Government isn’t a magical solution.
7y ago

mrep 7y ago

> But I did experience classism from my friends and family: there is status living in a world-class city. Can you go more into depth on that because I've never seen that and some of my extended family lives in small cities/farms in the midwest. If anything, they laugh because I pay $300 a month for parking. Then again, maybe chicago/seattle/san francisco aren't status bearing world class cities.

hashberry 7y ago
Many people treat their city as the center of the world. NYC is infamous for this. "Flyover states" is a common pejorative classist term. Every tech company sets up offices in large cities not just for the talent, but because people want to live in the city, not in the "boonies" or "in the sticks" with a bunch of "townies."

sgift 7y ago

That's one of the things being done. Problem is that for a while they didn't (that's what happens when you get people who think the market magically fixes things in power) and building new ones takes time. To get that time a stop gap measure was needed, hence freezing prices for five years for existing houses, no price freeze on new houses.

okr 7y ago
The "market" would like to fix it. But it is not allowed to. Because, well, politics or: "people in power" :-)

odiroot 7y ago

> If affordable housing is an issue, then perhaps the government should provide it for its citizens We already pay very high taxes in Berlin and not really getting much back from it (police, firefighters, cleaning services, public transit, even government offices are heavily underfunded). This idea would only make the taxes higher or take away much needed money from other areas.

hashberry 7y ago
What about issuing bonds and using rent to pay off the bonds?