6 ms·

It's perhaps worth considering these as forces to be balanced, rather than one extreme or the other being maximally desirable. Market rate neighborhoods with e

by Kalium 6y ago

It's perhaps worth considering these as forces to be balanced, rather than one extreme or the other being maximally desirable. Market rate neighborhoods with ever-increasing rent bring dynamism and are often an entry point into a city for professionals. They're liquid, and enable people to upsize or downsize their living situations with relative ease. Businesses and people come and go and there's an irrepressable energy to it. (There's a strong argument that the kind of risk, stress, and precariousness you rightly and richly describe are an effect of a NIMBY-induced housing crisis. The "market rate" and "rent control" dichotomy suggests that something is seriously hinky in the housing market at hand.) Rent controlled areas are calmer, slower, more stable. They are better for people who are able to find a place exactly to their liking and whose lives are improved by their ability to hold the world at bay. Which obviously never lasts forever. Things always change. As you say, both have long-term consequences. It's perhaps worth considering that perhaps neither set is inherently better than the other. And, above all, it's possible that the divide between the two could be underappreciated long-term consequences of policy.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
presentation 6y ago
My anecdata, coming from SF to Japan: people seem much less stressed about getting kicked out of their homes here or having their rent raised despite no rent control because there is actually sufficient supply, and people aren’t depending on their house to gain value over time for their financial future (housing is generally a depreciating asset). People tend to stay in the same homes for very long periods of time, and are invested in their local communities, but you can get short term housing or move frequently if you wish (short term leases exist but to be expected, cost to value ratio isn’t great; generally 1 year minimums without penalty for long term leases with 1 month rent fee if you leave earlier, and with high fees (3-5 months rent!) when you move in, so it’s not economically encouraged to hop a lot; I personally find these high costs unreasonable, but seems to be well accepted here). Housing is generally reasonably priced; you can live within 30 mins of central Tokyo by train for less than $400/mo as a single person in an apartment (SF seems to completely lack cheap, small options for single people); but for a significantly larger premium, you can get a standalone house as well if you’d like. For me, despite living in a significantly more expensive apartment, I generally spend significantly more on going out to restaurants and stuff than my rent. I personally think that if cities really invested in transit and relaxed zoning and permitting significantly, densifying neighborhoods, that market rate can produce the best of both worlds; but that would threaten the view that housing is an investment as the cornerstone of ones financial life, so it’s unlikely to happen in a place like the US.
- blackrock 6y ago
  > because there is actually sufficient supply Exactly! Build more housing! Homes should be made for living. Not for investments or speculation. Why is the American public and the politicians so clueless about this? Well, because they are the landlords that benefits from all the price increases. They are the foxes guarding the hen house.
  - hannasanarion 6y ago
    I think the more crucial part of the japanese example is > housing is generally a depreciating asset Housing cannot simultaneously be affordable and a good investment. In America, policymakers tend to prioritize real estate value over the ability of housing to actually house people. Homebuyers expect and demand that the values of their properties, including the rents that they generate, be constantly increasing. Supply and demand doesn't push prices down, because housing is inelastic: when you hike prices outside of people's means, they don't stop buying, they find more means, either by taking on more roommates, more jobs, or by making big cuts elsewhere in their budgets. Before the housing market was commodified and public housing looted by private interests in the 70s and 80s, spending 20% of your income on housing was considered absurdly high. Now 50% is the norm, because landlords and speculators keep raising prices and you can't not live in a house.
    - fomine3 6y ago
      I'm very curious why US housing price is still increasing despite of US' car culture and big land area.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - andromeduck 6y ago
        public transportation sucks and traffic doesn't scale well with single occupancy vehicles - at some point spending 6 hours per day in traffic just isn't worth it
ridaj 6y ago
> It's perhaps worth considering these as forces to be balanced, rather than one extreme or the other being maximally desirable. +1 > There's a strong argument that the kind of risk, stress, and precariousness you rightly and richly describe are an effect of a NIMBY-induced housing crisis. Perhaps, but in my personal case, I think it was the opposite. I experienced this in an environment that is highly favorable to private, market-rate high-rise housing development. Both San Francisco and NYC have housing shortage problems but I'm more likely to believe San Francisco's problem is inflicted by NIMBYism than New York's...
- astrange 6y ago
  NYC is very NIMBY and undemocratic (practically noone votes in local elections). The reason you don't hear about it more is that YIMBYism is not developed enough there for people to complain about it, but the population of NYC is decreasing because of housing supply issues. They also have a lot of left-NIMBY people making wrong arguments based on things they imagine are happening; in this case it's that all new housing is luxury towers that are being bought by "investors" and kept empty, for some reason related to taxes, instead of being rented out.
- Kalium 6y ago
  > Perhaps, but in my personal case, I think it was the opposite. I experienced this in an environment that is highly favorable to private, market-rate high-rise housing development. A great many people would characterize SF as highly favorable to private, market-rate high-rise housing development. I think this would be inaccurate, but they would say it with sincerity. I cannot find good maps on this particular subject, but I would venture to guess that much of NYC is not built of high-rises. It's likely mostly low-rises with a smattering of four to six story buildings built up to or exceeding current zoning. I would venture to guess that trying to get a parcel or an area up-zoned is a politically fraught and potentially quite expensive proposition.

by Kalium 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

presentation 6y ago

My anecdata, coming from SF to Japan: people seem much less stressed about getting kicked out of their homes here or having their rent raised despite no rent control because there is actually sufficient supply, and people aren’t depending on their house to gain value over time for their financial future (housing is generally a depreciating asset). People tend to stay in the same homes for very long periods of time, and are invested in their local communities, but you can get short term housing or move frequently if you wish (short term leases exist but to be expected, cost to value ratio isn’t great; generally 1 year minimums without penalty for long term leases with 1 month rent fee if you leave earlier, and with high fees (3-5 months rent!) when you move in, so it’s not economically encouraged to hop a lot; I personally find these high costs unreasonable, but seems to be well accepted here). Housing is generally reasonably priced; you can live within 30 mins of central Tokyo by train for less than $400/mo as a single person in an apartment (SF seems to completely lack cheap, small options for single people); but for a significantly larger premium, you can get a standalone house as well if you’d like. For me, despite living in a significantly more expensive apartment, I generally spend significantly more on going out to restaurants and stuff than my rent. I personally think that if cities really invested in transit and relaxed zoning and permitting significantly, densifying neighborhoods, that market rate can produce the best of both worlds; but that would threaten the view that housing is an investment as the cornerstone of ones financial life, so it’s unlikely to happen in a place like the US.

blackrock 6y ago
> because there is actually sufficient supply Exactly! Build more housing! Homes should be made for living. Not for investments or speculation. Why is the American public and the politicians so clueless about this? Well, because they are the landlords that benefits from all the price increases. They are the foxes guarding the hen house.
- hannasanarion 6y ago
  I think the more crucial part of the japanese example is > housing is generally a depreciating asset Housing cannot simultaneously be affordable and a good investment. In America, policymakers tend to prioritize real estate value over the ability of housing to actually house people. Homebuyers expect and demand that the values of their properties, including the rents that they generate, be constantly increasing. Supply and demand doesn't push prices down, because housing is inelastic: when you hike prices outside of people's means, they don't stop buying, they find more means, either by taking on more roommates, more jobs, or by making big cuts elsewhere in their budgets. Before the housing market was commodified and public housing looted by private interests in the 70s and 80s, spending 20% of your income on housing was considered absurdly high. Now 50% is the norm, because landlords and speculators keep raising prices and you can't not live in a house.
  - fomine3 6y ago
    I'm very curious why US housing price is still increasing despite of US' car culture and big land area.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - andromeduck 6y ago
      public transportation sucks and traffic doesn't scale well with single occupancy vehicles - at some point spending 6 hours per day in traffic just isn't worth it

ridaj 6y ago

> It's perhaps worth considering these as forces to be balanced, rather than one extreme or the other being maximally desirable. +1 > There's a strong argument that the kind of risk, stress, and precariousness you rightly and richly describe are an effect of a NIMBY-induced housing crisis. Perhaps, but in my personal case, I think it was the opposite. I experienced this in an environment that is highly favorable to private, market-rate high-rise housing development. Both San Francisco and NYC have housing shortage problems but I'm more likely to believe San Francisco's problem is inflicted by NIMBYism than New York's...

astrange 6y ago
NYC is very NIMBY and undemocratic (practically noone votes in local elections). The reason you don't hear about it more is that YIMBYism is not developed enough there for people to complain about it, but the population of NYC is decreasing because of housing supply issues. They also have a lot of left-NIMBY people making wrong arguments based on things they imagine are happening; in this case it's that all new housing is luxury towers that are being bought by "investors" and kept empty, for some reason related to taxes, instead of being rented out.
Kalium 6y ago
> Perhaps, but in my personal case, I think it was the opposite. I experienced this in an environment that is highly favorable to private, market-rate high-rise housing development. A great many people would characterize SF as highly favorable to private, market-rate high-rise housing development. I think this would be inaccurate, but they would say it with sincerity. I cannot find good maps on this particular subject, but I would venture to guess that much of NYC is not built of high-rises. It's likely mostly low-rises with a smattering of four to six story buildings built up to or exceeding current zoning. I would venture to guess that trying to get a parcel or an area up-zoned is a politically fraught and potentially quite expensive proposition.