3 ms·
Urban areas usually have a younger population than rural areas do, so I think it's safe to assume that a dramatic change in the number of young people will affe
by kijin 6y ago
Urban areas usually have a younger population than rural areas do, so I think it's safe to assume that a dramatic change in the number of young people will affect housing prices in cities more than in rural areas. For example, that block of crappy houses near the university would be worth a lot less without a steady stream of students to rent them out to.
- arp242 6y agoI think it's a bit more complex than that, houses decay over time and need replacing and upkeep. If we want sufficient housing in 50 years we need to maintain the upkeep as well, which will probably only be done according to "supply and demand", so there may still be a shortage just because many houses won't be maintained sufficiently. In quite a few cities you already see quite a lot of housing just left derelict even though there's a housing shortage. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if a larger part of the then-old people will want to keep living in the city, as that's where they've been living their entire lives (which differs a bit from today's old population). I don't know ... it's really hard to predict these things. It could very well be the case that you're right, but personally I wouldn't really bet on population decline significantly reducing the pressure on the housing situation. It seems more of an economical/policy issue to me than a population issue.