3 ms·
That can be right in the short term, but in the long term you'd expect developers to stay out of the market, so how is it that Chicago has a "glut of high quali
by cryptonector 4y ago
That can be right in the short term, but in the long term you'd expect developers to stay out of the market, so how is it that Chicago has a "glut of high quality housing at very low prices"?
- paconbork 4y agoMy guess is that this probably indicates that the primary obstacle to construction currently isn't developer capital. It could be that housing construction is still profitable, as there's comparatively less political resistance and less of the budget has to go to legal fees and bribes. In the interest of being intellectually honest though, that's probably not the full story. It's worth pointing out that Chicago's population peaked in the 50's and that property taxes were probably lower back then. Also worth pointing out that there's a lot of directions for sprawl to help meet housing demand. I actually grew up in Indiana and my dad worked in Chicago. We lived in Indiana because the property tax was significantly lower even though housing prices were comparable.
- xphos 4y agoI don't think this statement is true because in high cost areas developers still don't develop because higher price also mean higher land costs. On top of that places like NY have lower taxes but not enough development over a long term scale. This taxes codes don't change on a whim. There is also a factor of zoning when it comes to build there very well might not be any land to develop near a city because it's all saturated from long term speculation
- cryptonector 4y agoIn NYC property taxes are almost certainly the least relevant issue. In NYC there is a tremendous amount of political friction around new high-rise construction.