4 ms·

It’s not that different in Europe, we still get the same silly virtue-bikeshedding. In my city the government requires developers to include “affordable” flats

by rosndo 5y ago

It’s not that different in Europe, we still get the same silly virtue-bikeshedding. In my city the government requires developers to include “affordable” flats in luxury developments and then complains when the residents of the “affordable” flats have to enter through a separate “poor door” and don’t get to enjoy the swimming pool and wine cellar.

pydry 5y ago
Yet those are the apartments that sell out. In my city (London) that happens too. The ultra luxury flats are 50% unsold and have an occupancy rate that is lower still and they are STILL building more luxury housing with swimming pools and gyms nobody uses. The Soviet Union wasnt this bad at allocating resources. This is a free market that needs to be taken out and shot. It's culminated in the creation of assets, much like NFTs, whose existence is not predicated on them actually being used because all it needs to do is soak up capital, and actually useful economic activity had to be mandated into existence by local government (Ordinances to mandate % affordable housing). The worst part isnt even that. The worst part is that if developers cheap out and sell you a flammable flat they can charge you $100k++ after you've bought the flat to fix the flammability that was a result of their shoddy construction. And if you do die, it's not their problem. This is the culmination of decades of the UK mindlessly nodding along to the 1%'s "market knows best" propaganda. There's a reason the supposedly "free market" Singaporean government builds 90% of the housing stock in the country like they're fervent Stalinists. Coz that's the economically efficient way to house people.
- rosndo 5y ago
  > Yet those are the apartments that sell out. Well yeah, they’re generally amazing deals for decent quality new built apartments. Yeah sure, the staircase looks just average and not like a luxury hotel and there’s no gym or infinity pool! Doesn’t really seem like such a disaster when you get to live in a nice heavily discounted apartment on some of the most desirable square feet of earth in the world.
  - pydry 5y ago
    The disaster is that there is human demand for tens of thousands more of these that living, breathing people could actually live in but instead economic policy and capital distribution is geared towards building NFTs in the sky for Russian and Chinese billionaires.
    - maxwoj 5y ago
      It sounds like Russians and Chinese are to be blamed. I bet American billionaires had been involved decades earlier, including all American and European funds. Our tycoons lobbied our legislators and regulators way before the foreign billionaires came to riches and realized they may make money on our market as well.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    But it's not heavily discounted. The markup is just lower. The way these affordable appartment laws are typically written, they are still allowed to profit on those appartements. A typical appartment costs around 250-350$ per square foot to build. It's more profitable for them to sell appartements at 700$/sqft for only half of them to sell, costing them 350$/sqft to build, than to sell for 400$/sqft an appartment that cost 250$/sqft to build. The disaster isn't that there is no access to the pool. The issue is that they're trying to spite the poors and shame them, because they're trying to prevent them from moving in. If we really wanted, the government could build appartements of better quality and sell them at same price, AND make a profit on it. As the above commenter said, it's simply a market failure. It has nothing to do with the price of the land or anything, it's that the appartements are seen as an investment asset and will be bought at an exorbitant price eventually, as long as the price of the appartment doesn't fall in that "luxury" building. It's gross resource misallocation.
    - rosndo 5y ago
      > The disaster isn't that there is no access to the pool. The issue is that they're trying to spite the poors and shame them, because they're trying to prevent them from moving in. That’s really not true though. The facilities beyond the “poor doors” aren’t any different from how most normal people live, they’re just right next to luxury accommodation for rich people. The contrast is obviously more apparent, but the developers aren’t doing anything to screw over the poors (what’d be the point?). > If we really wanted, the government could build appartements of better quality and sell them at same price, AND make a profit on it. Of course, but the politicians would rather virtue signal about “poor doors” than actually solve problems.

by rosndo 5y ago

pydry 5y ago

Yet those are the apartments that sell out. In my city (London) that happens too. The ultra luxury flats are 50% unsold and have an occupancy rate that is lower still and they are STILL building more luxury housing with swimming pools and gyms nobody uses. The Soviet Union wasnt this bad at allocating resources. This is a free market that needs to be taken out and shot. It's culminated in the creation of assets, much like NFTs, whose existence is not predicated on them actually being used because all it needs to do is soak up capital, and actually useful economic activity had to be mandated into existence by local government (Ordinances to mandate % affordable housing). The worst part isnt even that. The worst part is that if developers cheap out and sell you a flammable flat they can charge you $100k++ after you've bought the flat to fix the flammability that was a result of their shoddy construction. And if you do die, it's not their problem. This is the culmination of decades of the UK mindlessly nodding along to the 1%'s "market knows best" propaganda. There's a reason the supposedly "free market" Singaporean government builds 90% of the housing stock in the country like they're fervent Stalinists. Coz that's the economically efficient way to house people.

rosndo 5y ago
> Yet those are the apartments that sell out. Well yeah, they’re generally amazing deals for decent quality new built apartments. Yeah sure, the staircase looks just average and not like a luxury hotel and there’s no gym or infinity pool! Doesn’t really seem like such a disaster when you get to live in a nice heavily discounted apartment on some of the most desirable square feet of earth in the world.
- pydry 5y ago
  The disaster is that there is human demand for tens of thousands more of these that living, breathing people could actually live in but instead economic policy and capital distribution is geared towards building NFTs in the sky for Russian and Chinese billionaires.
  - maxwoj 5y ago
    It sounds like Russians and Chinese are to be blamed. I bet American billionaires had been involved decades earlier, including all American and European funds. Our tycoons lobbied our legislators and regulators way before the foreign billionaires came to riches and realized they may make money on our market as well.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  But it's not heavily discounted. The markup is just lower. The way these affordable appartment laws are typically written, they are still allowed to profit on those appartements. A typical appartment costs around 250-350$ per square foot to build. It's more profitable for them to sell appartements at 700$/sqft for only half of them to sell, costing them 350$/sqft to build, than to sell for 400$/sqft an appartment that cost 250$/sqft to build. The disaster isn't that there is no access to the pool. The issue is that they're trying to spite the poors and shame them, because they're trying to prevent them from moving in. If we really wanted, the government could build appartements of better quality and sell them at same price, AND make a profit on it. As the above commenter said, it's simply a market failure. It has nothing to do with the price of the land or anything, it's that the appartements are seen as an investment asset and will be bought at an exorbitant price eventually, as long as the price of the appartment doesn't fall in that "luxury" building. It's gross resource misallocation.
  - rosndo 5y ago
    > The disaster isn't that there is no access to the pool. The issue is that they're trying to spite the poors and shame them, because they're trying to prevent them from moving in. That’s really not true though. The facilities beyond the “poor doors” aren’t any different from how most normal people live, they’re just right next to luxury accommodation for rich people. The contrast is obviously more apparent, but the developers aren’t doing anything to screw over the poors (what’d be the point?). > If we really wanted, the government could build appartements of better quality and sell them at same price, AND make a profit on it. Of course, but the politicians would rather virtue signal about “poor doors” than actually solve problems.