4 ms·

One thing I found fascinating about traveling in Japan is the opposite effect: even in a world-class city like Tokyo, nightly rates on all but top hotels were i

One thing I found fascinating about traveling in Japan is the opposite effect: even in a world-class city like Tokyo, nightly rates on all but top hotels were incredibly cheap: decent hotels I could get $50-80 a night, airbnbs I could find around $20-30 a night. (I imagine it's much higher in peak tourist season, but I was visiting in February). The ample housing supply lead to a glut of stays which made it really cheap as a visitor. It's really a case study for free market housing done right, in my opinion. The issue here is that we've enacted heavy government action (generally at the state/local level) to regulate development/redevelopment of housing and subdivision of lots, but we haven't had corresponding heavy government action to maintain an ample supply of housing. We can't have it both ways. One solution to the housing crisis is to have government build hundreds of thousands of units of housing, flood the market with cheap housing units, and drive housing costs down (and ideally also provide for the poor at the same time). Another is to systematically remove barriers to subdivision and development and let the free market go wild. Finally, we can do nothing except blame companies like Airbnb and hopefully by banning those short term rentals we can keep our rent price increases to 10% this year instead of 20%.

nostrademons 5y ago
Government construction of lots of housing was tried in the 60s and late 50s, with numerous public housing projects. It's generally considered a failure, because once the units were constructed the government had little incentive to maintain them. It was also a key pillar in enforcing de facto racial/class segregation. Removing barriers to subdivision and construction can work though. That's the approach that Houston takes, and it succeeds at keeping home prices low, even if you do get occasional negative consequences like homes built inside a flood reservoir.
- helen___keller 5y ago
  > Government construction of lots of housing was tried in the 60s and late 50s, with numerous public housing projects. It's generally considered a failure, because once the units were constructed the government had little incentive to maintain them. It was also a key pillar in enforcing de facto racial/class segregation. Sure, but evidence of incompetently developed infrastructure doesn't mean it's impossible to develop infrastructure competently (although we americans do tend to assume our government will build infrastructure with maximal incompetence, and our government in turn often does). Anyways, it is an option even if it's not the best one. > Removing barriers to subdivision and construction can work though. That's the approach that Houston takes, and it succeeds at keeping home prices low, even if you do get occasional negative consequences like homes built inside a flood reservoir. yep. I don't like the car-centric development style that Houston is built as, but you can't argue with results (meaning, affordability).
  - presentation 5y ago
    Yeah, Singapore's public housing construction seems to have fared far better - the US just did it in the worst way possible.

nostrademons 5y ago

Government construction of lots of housing was tried in the 60s and late 50s, with numerous public housing projects. It's generally considered a failure, because once the units were constructed the government had little incentive to maintain them. It was also a key pillar in enforcing de facto racial/class segregation. Removing barriers to subdivision and construction can work though. That's the approach that Houston takes, and it succeeds at keeping home prices low, even if you do get occasional negative consequences like homes built inside a flood reservoir.

helen___keller 5y ago
> Government construction of lots of housing was tried in the 60s and late 50s, with numerous public housing projects. It's generally considered a failure, because once the units were constructed the government had little incentive to maintain them. It was also a key pillar in enforcing de facto racial/class segregation. Sure, but evidence of incompetently developed infrastructure doesn't mean it's impossible to develop infrastructure competently (although we americans do tend to assume our government will build infrastructure with maximal incompetence, and our government in turn often does). Anyways, it is an option even if it's not the best one. > Removing barriers to subdivision and construction can work though. That's the approach that Houston takes, and it succeeds at keeping home prices low, even if you do get occasional negative consequences like homes built inside a flood reservoir. yep. I don't like the car-centric development style that Houston is built as, but you can't argue with results (meaning, affordability).
- presentation 5y ago
  Yeah, Singapore's public housing construction seems to have fared far better - the US just did it in the worst way possible.