3 ms·

I'm not following. In a capitalistic society a trendy area of "high value" will push the prices up unless some sort of socialistic program like rent control st

I'm not following. In a capitalistic society a trendy area of "high value" will push the prices up unless some sort of socialistic program like rent control steps in, no? My question was what's your take on how cheap residences can coexist in a trendy neighborhood.

jimbokun 18y ago
No. People will just build more residences until supply and demand meet a happy medium. Rent control actively pushes prices up for everyone by discouraging new development (unless you win the rent control lottery). Of course, there will be certain ultra trendy neighborhoods that will still be out of reach for all but the wealthy. But allowing developers to build new residences in urban areas make it more likely that poor, just out of college graduates will have some place they can afford to live. And if you think it is not possible to build new residences in already urban areas: note the article says that residences in lower Manhattan have doubled to house 50,000 people since 2001.
- Chocobean 18y ago
  Ah. I think I see what you mean. But I disagree that we can "just build more". It isn't just simple supply and demand because land, and hence living spaces, is finite. You can't just increase production until everyone is happy. And in a good neighborhood all new residential developments will be priced completely out of range for college grads and the likes. Availability isn't affordability. [edit: And I certainly believe in build-and-rebuild in urban areas. I've been to Hong Kong where the speed of urban renewal makes ones head spins. But all subsequent new projects are progressively more expensive than the existing projects. Building more units never made anything cheaper unless they were specifically slated as "social projects" funding by the government.] With regards to lower manhattan: are residences cheap there? Anyway. Sorry this turned into somewhat of an argument. The point is: it is impossible to have a trendy desirable neighbourhood with cheap residences.
  - jobeirne 18y ago
    Analogy: you can get a MacBook (i.e., trendy, desirable computer) for a reasonable price. If I were to tell you that the MacBook's production was inhibited by the finite supply of metals and silicon, you'd look at me like I'd just crapped a swan. The difference between city housing and a MacBook is that there is no restriction on how much you can sell a MacBook for after buying one.
  - DabAsteroid 18y ago
    I disagree that we can "just build more". It isn't just simple supply and demand because land, and hence living spaces, is finite. Potential living space is not limited to a horizontal plane. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22growing+vertically%22+%22living+space%22 http://www.google.com/search?q=%22growing+vertically%22+%22l... There is a reason that San Francisco buildings are notoriously short, and the reason is rent control. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-274es.html http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-274es.html
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]

jimbokun 18y ago

No. People will just build more residences until supply and demand meet a happy medium. Rent control actively pushes prices up for everyone by discouraging new development (unless you win the rent control lottery). Of course, there will be certain ultra trendy neighborhoods that will still be out of reach for all but the wealthy. But allowing developers to build new residences in urban areas make it more likely that poor, just out of college graduates will have some place they can afford to live. And if you think it is not possible to build new residences in already urban areas: note the article says that residences in lower Manhattan have doubled to house 50,000 people since 2001.

Chocobean 18y ago
Ah. I think I see what you mean. But I disagree that we can "just build more". It isn't just simple supply and demand because land, and hence living spaces, is finite. You can't just increase production until everyone is happy. And in a good neighborhood all new residential developments will be priced completely out of range for college grads and the likes. Availability isn't affordability. [edit: And I certainly believe in build-and-rebuild in urban areas. I've been to Hong Kong where the speed of urban renewal makes ones head spins. But all subsequent new projects are progressively more expensive than the existing projects. Building more units never made anything cheaper unless they were specifically slated as "social projects" funding by the government.] With regards to lower manhattan: are residences cheap there? Anyway. Sorry this turned into somewhat of an argument. The point is: it is impossible to have a trendy desirable neighbourhood with cheap residences.
- jobeirne 18y ago
  Analogy: you can get a MacBook (i.e., trendy, desirable computer) for a reasonable price. If I were to tell you that the MacBook's production was inhibited by the finite supply of metals and silicon, you'd look at me like I'd just crapped a swan. The difference between city housing and a MacBook is that there is no restriction on how much you can sell a MacBook for after buying one.
- DabAsteroid 18y ago
  I disagree that we can "just build more". It isn't just simple supply and demand because land, and hence living spaces, is finite. Potential living space is not limited to a horizontal plane. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22growing+vertically%22+%22living+space%22 http://www.google.com/search?q=%22growing+vertically%22+%22l... There is a reason that San Francisco buildings are notoriously short, and the reason is rent control. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-274es.html http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-274es.html

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]