4 ms·

> Places like this are expensive because places like this are scarce, and scarce things almost always become expensive. > The answer to this isn't to lower our

> Places like this are expensive because places like this are scarce, and scarce things almost always become expensive. > The answer to this isn't to lower our standards for design or to be dismissive of the things that are really lovable about these places. The answer is simply to allow a lot more Milwaukee Avenues to exist. And the same goes for the likes of all of today's beloved, "charming" historic districts. It's hard to me to point at the right paradigm, but it reminds me a lot of the "trickle down" principle, of flooding the top with valuable properties at affordable prices and expect that some of it will still be there for the plebes like us once the top people are satiated. I'm totally in for building more quality housing and neighborhoods, but there needs to be a lot more thought put into it.

crooked-v 5y ago
> and expect that some of it will still be there for the plebes like us once the top people are satiated Well, there definitely won't be any still there if you don't build something in the first place.
sgt101 5y ago
Housing is an interesting one though - it's not very liquid as in a very small % of the inventory changes hands every year so removing a premium with extra supply might have a big impact, especially if supply costs are not impacted. If impact on supply cost is marginal then ensuring that all properties are nice might be a way to improve the standard of living for a whole lot of folks.
YmiYugy 5y ago
The difference is that usually expensive properties are expensive to build. They are expensive because the houses and lots are huge, they are designed by expensive architects, use expensive materials, require custom and labor intensive techniques and have luxurious amenities. Walkable neighborhoods can be build cheaply. What makes them expensive is demand and land.
- makeitdouble 5y ago
  I am not sure to follow you. > They are expensive because the houses and lots are huge[...] What makes them expensive is demand and land So, cheaply built or not, as long as they are high quality either way they're expensive, no ?
akanet 5y ago
The notion that increasing housing supply is similar to "trickle down" economics is common in discourses of housing policy in America, but it is misguided. Reagan's notion that increasing the margins of the wealthy would induce them to pass profits to workers was mistaken in that its proposed mechanism was entirely altruism. Price reductions in housing from an increase in supply do not occur because the rich voluntarily leave some housing for the rest of society, but simply that they will less totally dominate the competition for this resource by virtue of there being more of it.
- makeitdouble 5y ago
  My point is that increase in supply alone doesn't automatically lead to less domination. For instance increasing the supply of high quality affordable housing by 2% in a place where there is high demand might not mean 2% more people will get the houses at a good price. It can mean instead that investors buy 2% more houses in that area to rent it at a price aligned with the market value. Wouldn't it be ok then if the increase was 5 or 10 or 50% of high quality housing ? Sure...but have we ever seen this level of increase result in actual well designed and livable areas ? I've personally only seen mild ghettos and weird super structures, and not all by skimping on the budget, but also because it's just damn hard to create a flourishing living environment from nothing.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - boondaburrah 5y ago
    I mean that's a weird way to describe Tokyo but it does work. Your last point still stands though & I'm not sure where the tipping point is.
    - makeitdouble 5y ago
      Does Tokyo have much affordable housing ? It's a very special situation on its own, but buying a house will usually get you into the 30+ years mortgage plans, and old buildings are earthquake hazards so I wouldn't call them high quality. Rents haven't much fallen even as inflation grew, and cheap places like Leopalaces are a hell to live in. All in all it looks to me to be a hard to live town if you're not in a decently good paying job.
brabel 5y ago
I don't think that's as simple as the article tries to make it out to be. As poorer people start moving into a neighborhood, the richer people will flee away en masse. It seems to me that rich people will pay any amount of money just to make sure they're living where other rich people are, even if that means moving somewhere less convenient. As the poorer people start taking over a hood due to prices going down for whatever reason (e.g. building more "affordable" accommodation), it begins to deteriorate such that in a decade or two, it becomes a "rough" place with badly maintained houses, dirty streets, broken street lamps, youngster gangs roaming around and so on. That's not the default of the poor people themselves only, I think, but a combination of them naturally having lower standards (so they complain less about broken things to the local government - not sure I can accept that poorer areas are less maintained because there's no people living there who are in government), less money to keep up with maintenance (so houses deteriorate and stop looking cute), higher tendency of the youngsters in getting involved in gangs and crime (simply because many of them have far fewer opportunities in life, and they become aware of that very early) and so on. Where I live is not a rough hood by any means, but it's more "affordable" than many other places... and I can see at least some of these things happening here... the government doesn't keep the vegetation on public places nearly as well trimmed as in the rich areas, there's definitely less care with the quality of the street pavement, houses are not completely deteriorated but most are not in perfect shape either... I just need to walk around 20 mins to get into an area where everything changes and houses are all of a sudden perfectly well kept, the public areas are beautiful, even the people look "prettier". This segregation seems to happen naturally with humans everywhere.
- makeitdouble 5y ago
  This is a real dynamic seen times and times. The catch is, poor people's houses are not owned by poor people. "Rich" people don't need to live there to own the land and dictate prices up to a point. They'll flee away and rent the house basically, and they can afford to keep it at the highest price the market validates.
- TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
  This is function of house prices, not of natural segregation. When I was growing up in London the streets around me were fairly mixed. You could find public school educated lawyers, minor celebrities, and even a few financial types living close to factory and shop workers. As public housing was sold off and property prices were goosed towards the stratosphere the inevitable result was separation, because the poors were economically cleansed into poverty ghettos. Now houses on the street I grew up on - built as cheap and dense worker housing - sell for around £1m. I think the arrow of expense points in both directions. Building more nice neighbourhoods would lower prices. But one of the reasons nice neighbourhoods aren't built is because it's so easy to make money by building cheap trash housing and selling it to people who can barely afford it.

crooked-v 5y ago

> and expect that some of it will still be there for the plebes like us once the top people are satiated Well, there definitely won't be any still there if you don't build something in the first place.

sgt101 5y ago

Housing is an interesting one though - it's not very liquid as in a very small % of the inventory changes hands every year so removing a premium with extra supply might have a big impact, especially if supply costs are not impacted. If impact on supply cost is marginal then ensuring that all properties are nice might be a way to improve the standard of living for a whole lot of folks.

YmiYugy 5y ago

The difference is that usually expensive properties are expensive to build. They are expensive because the houses and lots are huge, they are designed by expensive architects, use expensive materials, require custom and labor intensive techniques and have luxurious amenities. Walkable neighborhoods can be build cheaply. What makes them expensive is demand and land.

makeitdouble 5y ago
I am not sure to follow you. > They are expensive because the houses and lots are huge[...] What makes them expensive is demand and land So, cheaply built or not, as long as they are high quality either way they're expensive, no ?

akanet 5y ago

The notion that increasing housing supply is similar to "trickle down" economics is common in discourses of housing policy in America, but it is misguided. Reagan's notion that increasing the margins of the wealthy would induce them to pass profits to workers was mistaken in that its proposed mechanism was entirely altruism. Price reductions in housing from an increase in supply do not occur because the rich voluntarily leave some housing for the rest of society, but simply that they will less totally dominate the competition for this resource by virtue of there being more of it.

makeitdouble 5y ago
My point is that increase in supply alone doesn't automatically lead to less domination. For instance increasing the supply of high quality affordable housing by 2% in a place where there is high demand might not mean 2% more people will get the houses at a good price. It can mean instead that investors buy 2% more houses in that area to rent it at a price aligned with the market value. Wouldn't it be ok then if the increase was 5 or 10 or 50% of high quality housing ? Sure...but have we ever seen this level of increase result in actual well designed and livable areas ? I've personally only seen mild ghettos and weird super structures, and not all by skimping on the budget, but also because it's just damn hard to create a flourishing living environment from nothing.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- boondaburrah 5y ago
  I mean that's a weird way to describe Tokyo but it does work. Your last point still stands though & I'm not sure where the tipping point is.
  - makeitdouble 5y ago
    Does Tokyo have much affordable housing ? It's a very special situation on its own, but buying a house will usually get you into the 30+ years mortgage plans, and old buildings are earthquake hazards so I wouldn't call them high quality. Rents haven't much fallen even as inflation grew, and cheap places like Leopalaces are a hell to live in. All in all it looks to me to be a hard to live town if you're not in a decently good paying job.

brabel 5y ago

I don't think that's as simple as the article tries to make it out to be. As poorer people start moving into a neighborhood, the richer people will flee away en masse. It seems to me that rich people will pay any amount of money just to make sure they're living where other rich people are, even if that means moving somewhere less convenient. As the poorer people start taking over a hood due to prices going down for whatever reason (e.g. building more "affordable" accommodation), it begins to deteriorate such that in a decade or two, it becomes a "rough" place with badly maintained houses, dirty streets, broken street lamps, youngster gangs roaming around and so on. That's not the default of the poor people themselves only, I think, but a combination of them naturally having lower standards (so they complain less about broken things to the local government - not sure I can accept that poorer areas are less maintained because there's no people living there who are in government), less money to keep up with maintenance (so houses deteriorate and stop looking cute), higher tendency of the youngsters in getting involved in gangs and crime (simply because many of them have far fewer opportunities in life, and they become aware of that very early) and so on. Where I live is not a rough hood by any means, but it's more "affordable" than many other places... and I can see at least some of these things happening here... the government doesn't keep the vegetation on public places nearly as well trimmed as in the rich areas, there's definitely less care with the quality of the street pavement, houses are not completely deteriorated but most are not in perfect shape either... I just need to walk around 20 mins to get into an area where everything changes and houses are all of a sudden perfectly well kept, the public areas are beautiful, even the people look "prettier". This segregation seems to happen naturally with humans everywhere.

makeitdouble 5y ago
This is a real dynamic seen times and times. The catch is, poor people's houses are not owned by poor people. "Rich" people don't need to live there to own the land and dictate prices up to a point. They'll flee away and rent the house basically, and they can afford to keep it at the highest price the market validates.
TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
This is function of house prices, not of natural segregation. When I was growing up in London the streets around me were fairly mixed. You could find public school educated lawyers, minor celebrities, and even a few financial types living close to factory and shop workers. As public housing was sold off and property prices were goosed towards the stratosphere the inevitable result was separation, because the poors were economically cleansed into poverty ghettos. Now houses on the street I grew up on - built as cheap and dense worker housing - sell for around £1m. I think the arrow of expense points in both directions. Building more nice neighbourhoods would lower prices. But one of the reasons nice neighbourhoods aren't built is because it's so easy to make money by building cheap trash housing and selling it to people who can barely afford it.