4 ms·
A recent Peter Thiel video[1] has a great comment on this subject. If building 1% extra houses drops the cost of all remaining houses by 2%, would the city be r
by BrainVirus 4y ago
A recent Peter Thiel video[1] has a great comment on this subject. If building 1% extra houses drops the cost of all remaining houses by 2%, would the city be really interested in increasing the supply? Especially if property is seen as investment first, place to live second.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=balGGAd6ZrI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=balGGAd6ZrI
- nemothekid 4y ago>If building 1% extra houses drops the cost of all remaining houses by 2%, would the city be really interested in increasing the supply? Do you have a timestamp? Surely Thiel isn't advocating for nationalizing housing, but the talk seems to devolve into wokeism? I imagine he's playing the crowd, but I can't get a read on what his actual solutions are.
- BrainVirus 4y agohttps://youtu.be/balGGAd6ZrI?t=802 https://youtu.be/balGGAd6ZrI?t=802
- rr888 4y ago> property is seen as investment first, place to live second I disagree with this, I think NIMBY attitudes is mainly about keeping the quality of live, they want to keep current housing and avoid apartments, more crowds etc. Development and more people increases the value of existing property.
- majormajor 4y agoWhere has development dropped prices like that? The densest places in the US have some of the most expensive land and property values. Even if it's old and crumbling. People do development to increase the value of land. It's practically in the name. The core opposition to development is all about "character of the neighborhood" and resistance to change. The value of land in SF is more likely to go down if they drive too many people out, than if it becomes even denser and bustling.