5 ms·

Berlin has been a hot market for a long time, what's been built has been a lot of very expensive apartments. There is actually some leerstand but they are luxur

by awild 5y ago

Berlin has been a hot market for a long time, what's been built has been a lot of very expensive apartments. There is actually some leerstand but they are luxury apartments without renters. The biggest thing the market has achieved in Berlin is allowing landlords to rent out shitty apartments at abhorrent prices (25sqm at 600€) without incentive to actually provide good services for the renters

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
It would surprise me if Berlin is permissive with respect to permitting new housing. It would be quite unique among desirable western cities if it did. When the amount of new housing allowed is insufficient to keep up with growth in demand, obviously developers are going to tackle the most lucrative segment of the market, since they can essentially pick their buyers. If there were ten people who want new cars but you have one import permit, and your cut is 10%, are you going to import the luxury car or the econobox?
- awild 5y ago
  I agree and that's why I think the problem cannot be solved in private hands but with communal ownership.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
    If you permit enough new housing to satisfy demand, that would also solve the problem. As long as insufficient new housing is being built, prices will go up on market rate housing. The lucky few who manage to get into price controlled housing will have better prices, but everyone else will face higher costs or be unable to live in a region entirely. One thing is for sure: as long as any private housing ownership is allowed, rich people aren't going to be the ones left high and dry.
    - awild 5y ago
      The amount of new apts would be dramatically high to curb prices and make them realistic again. And Berlin is probably also not able to magically create as much new living space as is needed in that short of a time frame especially given the developers unwillingness to build affordable housing. I think where we probably fundamentally don't agree is that not all things need to be provided through a market. (or I think my point is more so that we've at least observed it not reall working here, so we could at least try a different strategy or multitudes and see how far those take us)
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
        > The amount of new apts would be dramatically high to curb prices and make them realistic again I'm fine with short term patches to help with the acute issues, but fundamentally unless a lot of housing is built, there are going to be some people suffering in the housing market. Either it will be poor people paying a lot for housing, or it will be poor people who are unable to win lotteries to get into public housing who then cannot afford housing at all. Whether the housing is publicly or privately owned is just pushing sand around the sandbox. It just changes exactly who the winners and losers are, but not the number of people losing. > I think where we probably fundamentally don't agree is that not all things need to be provided through a market. I don't hold this belief. There is no fundamental disagreement on this score between us.
  - notanzaiiswear 5y ago
    The problem is: who gets the cheap housing in communal ownership? Supply is limited. So if you don't pick the person who is willing to pay the most, who do you give the apartment to? Who gets to decide? Are you sure you want to live in that kind of world, where some political elite gets to decide your fate?
    - awild 5y ago
      There is already communal property in Berlin and all over Europe. Its not some grim socialist dystopia. They serve under the same conditions as private companies just don't have to completely bend over to shareholders wishes. Vienna the city for example is the biggest landlord in Europe. Obviously we need more housing but until then we also need to ensure that people with normal incomes can also afford to live _in_ the City.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - yunohn 5y ago
      > Are you sure you want to live in that kind of world, where some political elite gets to decide your fate? Whenever people say stuff like this, I wonder if they’ve ever taken a moment to look around themselves and see that it is already that way. The current housing problem is also orchestrated by the same political elite…
      - xyzzyz 5y ago
        There is a difference between policies making your desired place more expensive, and being literally dependent on some corrupt government officials, who is handing out apartments as favors for allies, or just for bribes.
    - bakuninsbart 5y ago
      A number of public housing here in Berlin is reserved for people making less than a certain amount, having no job at all, or working/living in precarious situations. You can apply for that status at the local gov. It is not flawless, of course, but it at least avoids segregation. I live in a district that was originally working class, and is being very fastly gentrified now (yuppie myself I guess), and it just sucks that people who've lived here all their lives have to move to completely new environments because this is now an area desirable desirable for rich people. Same with small businesses, one of my favorite bars closed down recently due to some English billionaires wanting to turn the house into higher margin living. Vice did a documentary on it called "Punks vs. Billionaires". For the people living here, who live in small flats and still pay half their income to it, these "living room" bars, where you do not have to buy to be welcome were absolutely essential. But they all get destroyed now. Almost all new private housing is for richer people, because they are the most profitable, and lots of them move over at the moment. The state needs to step in to make sure that normal people can still live a decent life around here, too, lest we become a horror show like London.
notanzaiiswear 5y ago
The argument of the empty apartments in Berlin comes up all the time, but it is a myth. Maybe in London it is different, for various reasons, but in Berlin, that is not the reason for the issues. [1] Even if only new luxury apartments are being built, it is more housing that takes pressure off the market. The wealthy people can move into those apartments, freeing their old less luxurious apartments for "poorer" people. And there is no "free market" for housing here - it is very difficult to build, with lots of regulations. And who wants to invest, when the government will seize your assets as soon as you are successful? Last year they introduced a hard cap on rents, that applied no matter how much you paid for the house you wanted to rent out, and no matter where it was located. In two weeks, there will be a public vote to seize thousands of flats at "way below market value" (quote from the voting sheet) from corporate landlords. These are not conditions where a "free market" can do its thing. As a matter of fact, only big companies have the means to build under such conditions, it is much too risky for smaller entities. But then, sure, blame the evil capitalists for the issues your socialist government has created. [1] https://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/wohnungsnot-leerstand-in-berlin-alles-spekulation/22590984.html https://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/wohnungsnot-leerstand-in-...
- shkkmo 5y ago
  > Even if only new luxury apartments are being built, it is more housing that takes pressure off the market. Luxury housing construction can help, but can't really fix the issue on its own because it is also a relatively inefficient and expensive method of increasing the housing supply (since each added unit has high costs.) This problem is one that a large number of municipalities have failed to solve. It seems very difficult to get the regulatory and tax incentive structure setup just right to get sufficient affordable housing built in large urban areas. > As a matter of fact, only big companies have the means to build under such conditions, it is much too risky for smaller entities. I would think that governments have the scale to take on those risks as well. At some point, I think it makes sense to stop struggling to get privately build affordable housing and do it publicly.
vonmoltke 5y ago
How is it that there are "luxury apartments without renters", yet landlords get away with " rent[ing] out shitty apartments at abhorrent prices"? Why don't the people who can afford those shitty apartments move to the empty luxury ones instead?
- Kliment 5y ago
  Because they're not on the rental market, but are mostly used as a value store by owners that don't live anywhere nearby, and have multiple properties.
  - geitir 5y ago
    Maybe impose a tax on unoccupied apartments past a certain number
    - dredmorbius 5y ago
      A land value tax accomplishes this without the complexities of determining occupancy status or fraud concerning same.

by awild 5y ago

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago

It would surprise me if Berlin is permissive with respect to permitting new housing. It would be quite unique among desirable western cities if it did. When the amount of new housing allowed is insufficient to keep up with growth in demand, obviously developers are going to tackle the most lucrative segment of the market, since they can essentially pick their buyers. If there were ten people who want new cars but you have one import permit, and your cut is 10%, are you going to import the luxury car or the econobox?

awild 5y ago
I agree and that's why I think the problem cannot be solved in private hands but with communal ownership.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  If you permit enough new housing to satisfy demand, that would also solve the problem. As long as insufficient new housing is being built, prices will go up on market rate housing. The lucky few who manage to get into price controlled housing will have better prices, but everyone else will face higher costs or be unable to live in a region entirely. One thing is for sure: as long as any private housing ownership is allowed, rich people aren't going to be the ones left high and dry.
  - awild 5y ago
    The amount of new apts would be dramatically high to curb prices and make them realistic again. And Berlin is probably also not able to magically create as much new living space as is needed in that short of a time frame especially given the developers unwillingness to build affordable housing. I think where we probably fundamentally don't agree is that not all things need to be provided through a market. (or I think my point is more so that we've at least observed it not reall working here, so we could at least try a different strategy or multitudes and see how far those take us)
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
      > The amount of new apts would be dramatically high to curb prices and make them realistic again I'm fine with short term patches to help with the acute issues, but fundamentally unless a lot of housing is built, there are going to be some people suffering in the housing market. Either it will be poor people paying a lot for housing, or it will be poor people who are unable to win lotteries to get into public housing who then cannot afford housing at all. Whether the housing is publicly or privately owned is just pushing sand around the sandbox. It just changes exactly who the winners and losers are, but not the number of people losing. > I think where we probably fundamentally don't agree is that not all things need to be provided through a market. I don't hold this belief. There is no fundamental disagreement on this score between us.
- notanzaiiswear 5y ago
  The problem is: who gets the cheap housing in communal ownership? Supply is limited. So if you don't pick the person who is willing to pay the most, who do you give the apartment to? Who gets to decide? Are you sure you want to live in that kind of world, where some political elite gets to decide your fate?
  - awild 5y ago
    There is already communal property in Berlin and all over Europe. Its not some grim socialist dystopia. They serve under the same conditions as private companies just don't have to completely bend over to shareholders wishes. Vienna the city for example is the biggest landlord in Europe. Obviously we need more housing but until then we also need to ensure that people with normal incomes can also afford to live _in_ the City.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - yunohn 5y ago
    > Are you sure you want to live in that kind of world, where some political elite gets to decide your fate? Whenever people say stuff like this, I wonder if they’ve ever taken a moment to look around themselves and see that it is already that way. The current housing problem is also orchestrated by the same political elite…
    - xyzzyz 5y ago
      There is a difference between policies making your desired place more expensive, and being literally dependent on some corrupt government officials, who is handing out apartments as favors for allies, or just for bribes.
  - bakuninsbart 5y ago
    A number of public housing here in Berlin is reserved for people making less than a certain amount, having no job at all, or working/living in precarious situations. You can apply for that status at the local gov. It is not flawless, of course, but it at least avoids segregation. I live in a district that was originally working class, and is being very fastly gentrified now (yuppie myself I guess), and it just sucks that people who've lived here all their lives have to move to completely new environments because this is now an area desirable desirable for rich people. Same with small businesses, one of my favorite bars closed down recently due to some English billionaires wanting to turn the house into higher margin living. Vice did a documentary on it called "Punks vs. Billionaires". For the people living here, who live in small flats and still pay half their income to it, these "living room" bars, where you do not have to buy to be welcome were absolutely essential. But they all get destroyed now. Almost all new private housing is for richer people, because they are the most profitable, and lots of them move over at the moment. The state needs to step in to make sure that normal people can still live a decent life around here, too, lest we become a horror show like London.

notanzaiiswear 5y ago

The argument of the empty apartments in Berlin comes up all the time, but it is a myth. Maybe in London it is different, for various reasons, but in Berlin, that is not the reason for the issues. [1] Even if only new luxury apartments are being built, it is more housing that takes pressure off the market. The wealthy people can move into those apartments, freeing their old less luxurious apartments for "poorer" people. And there is no "free market" for housing here - it is very difficult to build, with lots of regulations. And who wants to invest, when the government will seize your assets as soon as you are successful? Last year they introduced a hard cap on rents, that applied no matter how much you paid for the house you wanted to rent out, and no matter where it was located. In two weeks, there will be a public vote to seize thousands of flats at "way below market value" (quote from the voting sheet) from corporate landlords. These are not conditions where a "free market" can do its thing. As a matter of fact, only big companies have the means to build under such conditions, it is much too risky for smaller entities. But then, sure, blame the evil capitalists for the issues your socialist government has created. [1] https://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/wohnungsnot-leerstand-in-berlin-alles-spekulation/22590984.html https://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/wohnungsnot-leerstand-in-...

shkkmo 5y ago
> Even if only new luxury apartments are being built, it is more housing that takes pressure off the market. Luxury housing construction can help, but can't really fix the issue on its own because it is also a relatively inefficient and expensive method of increasing the housing supply (since each added unit has high costs.) This problem is one that a large number of municipalities have failed to solve. It seems very difficult to get the regulatory and tax incentive structure setup just right to get sufficient affordable housing built in large urban areas. > As a matter of fact, only big companies have the means to build under such conditions, it is much too risky for smaller entities. I would think that governments have the scale to take on those risks as well. At some point, I think it makes sense to stop struggling to get privately build affordable housing and do it publicly.

vonmoltke 5y ago

How is it that there are "luxury apartments without renters", yet landlords get away with " rent[ing] out shitty apartments at abhorrent prices"? Why don't the people who can afford those shitty apartments move to the empty luxury ones instead?

Kliment 5y ago
Because they're not on the rental market, but are mostly used as a value store by owners that don't live anywhere nearby, and have multiple properties.
- geitir 5y ago
  Maybe impose a tax on unoccupied apartments past a certain number
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    A land value tax accomplishes this without the complexities of determining occupancy status or fraud concerning same.