3 ms·

>Allowing private developers to build market-rate housing results in the construction of “luxury” housing instead of “affordable” housing. Don't know about the

>Allowing private developers to build market-rate housing results in the construction of “luxury” housing instead of “affordable” housing. Don't know about the rest, but this one seems to have some truth to it. No developer wants their brand spanking new condo to be occupied by paupers. It gives the place a bad image and brings the value down. Plus because you cannot simply kick out tenants in most places, you are stuck getting a low income for a very long time. So they prefer to market them as studios for expats and young professionals and keep half of them empty accumulating dust. There's certainly something to fix there although I cannot tell you how.

erentz 6y ago
It’s not clear there is anything to fix here. I think the article explains pretty well that, yes newer units will be preferable to wealthier residents, but this results in older units being cheaper, and results in fewer existing/non-wealthy residents in the area being displaced. Often luxury is also a misnomer. At least here in Seattle most of what gets labeled as “luxury” is merely new. There’s nothing that special about the complexes or units aside from newness. The materials etc, aren’t luxury grade.
- Kalium 6y ago
  If all the housing you're accustomed to was shoddily built more than seven decades ago and indifferently maintained since, then quartz countertops and generic Whirlpool dishwashers probably seem like an unfathomable level of luxury. As you say, though, it's generally a misnomer. Often it seems like a thin euphemism for "New and not for you".
  - nitrogen 6y ago
    "Luxury" rarely even includes adequate soundproofing. You'd find more people willing to pay more money for less space if they got some of the same privacy and noise pollution benefits they get in standalone houses.
zip1234 6y ago
I think this may be caused by zoning. If people were allowed to gradually grow an area rather than wait until things got 'rezoned' before a place can built up, we might see less of the 'big developer' type construction and rather smaller developers adding a duplex or a four plex and over time the city grows up rather than what happens right now.

erentz 6y ago

It’s not clear there is anything to fix here. I think the article explains pretty well that, yes newer units will be preferable to wealthier residents, but this results in older units being cheaper, and results in fewer existing/non-wealthy residents in the area being displaced. Often luxury is also a misnomer. At least here in Seattle most of what gets labeled as “luxury” is merely new. There’s nothing that special about the complexes or units aside from newness. The materials etc, aren’t luxury grade.

Kalium 6y ago
If all the housing you're accustomed to was shoddily built more than seven decades ago and indifferently maintained since, then quartz countertops and generic Whirlpool dishwashers probably seem like an unfathomable level of luxury. As you say, though, it's generally a misnomer. Often it seems like a thin euphemism for "New and not for you".
- nitrogen 6y ago
  "Luxury" rarely even includes adequate soundproofing. You'd find more people willing to pay more money for less space if they got some of the same privacy and noise pollution benefits they get in standalone houses.

zip1234 6y ago

I think this may be caused by zoning. If people were allowed to gradually grow an area rather than wait until things got 'rezoned' before a place can built up, we might see less of the 'big developer' type construction and rather smaller developers adding a duplex or a four plex and over time the city grows up rather than what happens right now.