3 ms·
I'm sure the percentage is much much higher in supply constrained cities, because those cities are where there's much more opportunity for speculative real esta
by epistasis 4y ago
I'm sure the percentage is much much higher in supply constrained cities, because those cities are where there's much more opportunity for speculative real estate growth, and the local political structures are dedicated to keeping the supply constrained, and the speculative real estate asset price growth unchecked.
At the core of a lot of this is the NIMBY behavior and downzoning that started in the 1970s. It's hyper-commodified housing, while decommoditizing out places to live. (Please note that the difference between commodify and commoditize, here.)
- DoneWithAllThat 4y agoAnd it’s just as much the fault of people who demand we don’t build for SFHs, only high density housing that’s highly undesirable to a large fraction of the home buying population. You don’t get to just blame NIMBYism for constraining the supply of the most desirable homes.
- epistasis 4y agoIn supply constrained areas, more SFHs are physically impossible. And the more people who are allowed to live in their preferred multi family units, the more SFHs available to those who prefer them. We don't block SFHs anywhere, there's no minimum density. However we block higher densities nearly everywhere. So blaming the people wanting higher density makes zero sense.