5 ms·
Disclosure: I don't live in Portland. I live in Sydney, which has a much higher population and much higher real estate prices. The population density is hard to
by ajxs 7y ago
Disclosure: I don't live in Portland. I live in Sydney, which has a much higher population and much higher real estate prices. The population density is hard to compare, since Sydney has a very large and sprawling metropolitan area of 4,775.2 square miles.
The first thing I think of when I read this is that while this kind of development may superficially look to benefit those looking to purchase property, urban consolidation will benefit property developers much more so than consumers. Sydney is undergoing considerable urban consolidation and we're hardly seeing any reduction in property value at all. We've seen all manner of predatory practices on behalf of property developers occurring in this city to ensure that the price is kept artificially high. One practice that is all too common is developers buying up property and only releasing it onto the market slowly to maximise commercial gain, as ridiculous as it sounds, anecdotally this is quite common.
I wouldn't celebrate just yet.
- ggm 7y agoSydney, like S.F. is a highly distorted market (but for different reasons, and in different ways: what is similar, is that it is distorted, not how its distorted)
- ajxs 7y agoYes, you're completely right. Sydney has some severe problems in this area that there's no incentive for regulators to resolve. I can't comment on S.F, however.
- cycrutchfield 7y agoWho cares? Once equilibrium is reached, prices will be lower (or at least, rise more slowly). That’s simple supply and demand. Those property developers are taking on a considerable amount of inventory risk. One hiccup in the housing market and they go bankrupt. If that’s the game they are willing to play, then so be it.
- nitrogen 7y agoThere's not a whole lot of risk in being first in line to buy up all of the XBoxes and scalping them to desperate parents. Or to buying up enough aluminum that you can hoard it. Or owning enough land that you choose the price. When you control the supply of an essential resource, you can name your price. Great way to make money, terrible way to make a society.
- epistasis 7y agoWhat Oregon did here, massively increase the supply of buildable land in one fell swoop, is pretty much the antithesis of those shortages you talk about there though. The trend for cities in the past 75 years has been to down some continuously until there's not enough spare land that's zoned to account for the necessary population growth. Then, in that highly supply constrained environment, use political processes to upzone only a tiny amount of land. Typically this is the "blight," the few places that minorities where allowed to live when racist deed restrictions were allowed, the areas where city services were less, and that stayed that way. Societies would take the most undervalued land, force the huge backed up pressure into these vulnerable neighborhoods, and let the few lucky developers that were politically savvy enough to navigate the process make away with the profits. Now that it's everywhere, there will be more competition between developers and there will be far less exploitation of an artificially restricted resource. Land is already restricted enough, zoning for density just makes it all the more scarce and exploitable by the powerful.
- podunkPDX 7y agoLiving here in Portland, though, my fear is that it won’t be developers taking a flyer to build these homes, it will be the investor class bankrolling the developers to build permanent rental properties. Hoping I’m wrong, but the last few decades’ antics with investors tells me I’m not.
- sjg007 7y agoMaybe. You may get owners who live in one duplex and rent the others out. Or two couple Buy two and rent the others out. Lots of options. I would do it. In fact seems like a good reason to move to Minneapolis.