3 ms·
Your examples still prove my point. In your first example, the house is a good investment but no longer affordable, and the high-density apartment is affordable
by maxlamb 5y ago
Your examples still prove my point. In your first example, the house is a good investment but no longer affordable, and the high-density apartment is affordable but not a good investment. If the apartment becomes a good investment, then at some point even it becomes no longer affordable, i.e. an condominium/apartment in an expensive city like New York or SF. If it stays affordable forever then by definition it is not a great investment.
- zamfi 5y agoWhat is your point exactly? Yes, the same house is no longer affordable, but “housing” is affordable because you can now buy an apartment at a reasonable price. The areas where housing is no longer affordable are the areas where you can’t buy any housing with the median income, not where the fanciest housing is inaccessible to the median income. What form that housing takes (detached house, apartment in a duplex, then 4-pled, then larger apt building) will change over time as density increases.
- maxlamb 5y agoMy point is that real estate cannot be a good investment and affordable at the same time in the long run. In your example, if the affordable apartment stays affordable the next 20 years then it’s not a good investment. In many cities that small apartment was good investment because now even those small apartments are no longer affordable (i.e downtown Denver, downtown Austin).