4 ms·

All housing construction helps affordability. That person who moves into a luxury condo leaves a vacancy elsewhere in the market.

ch4s3 7y ago
Well, that's sort of true. I'm about as pro-building as they come, but it's important to keep in mind that housing is a segmented market and that due to preference and affordability, people are only engaging on the demand side across a few segments. A glut of housing at the highest price tier will indeed allow people in the next tier to upgrade, but in the short run the affordability only ends up trickling down a few tiers. However, as housing ages it will filter down to lower segments if there is newer supply. So it's probably correct to say "All housing construction eventually helps affordability."
- all_blue_chucks 7y ago
  If there aren't enough new luxury units to meet demand people will upgrade existing units to luxury status, thereby SHRINKING the supply of affordable housing. For this reason, building luxury homes is essential for housing the homeless.
- Noos 7y ago
  I'm not sure. I only think this works if the local economy declines, to where enough people don't want the houses any more and the price naturally reduces. I can fully see Seattle simply charging the same or more rents as housing is added if the economy keeps growing.
lonelappde 7y ago
NYC and Detroit disagree with you. Housing may increase quality of life or income or total wealth, but it doesn't help affordability if it makes the city more attractive to families and immigrants. Cities have nonlinear dynamics. It's funny how people who believe that more housing causes more affordability also tend to believe that building more roads doesn't clear congestion.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- all_blue_chucks 7y ago
  > [building housing] doesn't help affordability if it makes the city more attractive to families Your solution to homeless is to make cities so unattractive people flee? I suppose that would reduce rents, in a horrible way.

ch4s3 7y ago

Well, that's sort of true. I'm about as pro-building as they come, but it's important to keep in mind that housing is a segmented market and that due to preference and affordability, people are only engaging on the demand side across a few segments. A glut of housing at the highest price tier will indeed allow people in the next tier to upgrade, but in the short run the affordability only ends up trickling down a few tiers. However, as housing ages it will filter down to lower segments if there is newer supply. So it's probably correct to say "All housing construction eventually helps affordability."

all_blue_chucks 7y ago
If there aren't enough new luxury units to meet demand people will upgrade existing units to luxury status, thereby SHRINKING the supply of affordable housing. For this reason, building luxury homes is essential for housing the homeless.
Noos 7y ago
I'm not sure. I only think this works if the local economy declines, to where enough people don't want the houses any more and the price naturally reduces. I can fully see Seattle simply charging the same or more rents as housing is added if the economy keeps growing.

lonelappde 7y ago

NYC and Detroit disagree with you. Housing may increase quality of life or income or total wealth, but it doesn't help affordability if it makes the city more attractive to families and immigrants. Cities have nonlinear dynamics. It's funny how people who believe that more housing causes more affordability also tend to believe that building more roads doesn't clear congestion.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
all_blue_chucks 7y ago
> [building housing] doesn't help affordability if it makes the city more attractive to families Your solution to homeless is to make cities so unattractive people flee? I suppose that would reduce rents, in a horrible way.