5 ms·
>They left the free market to do its thing. And this is the end result of decades of free enterprise. We’ve built lots of housing for upper middle class because
by AussieWog93 4y ago
>They left the free market to do its thing. And this is the end result of decades of free enterprise. We’ve built lots of housing for upper middle class because that’s profitable for builders and largely left the poor/young to be screwed.
Is that true? I'd imagine building a big block of, say, 100 units to be far more capital efficient than building a few freestanding homes, if zoning laws allowed it.
- MonkeyMalarky 4y agoThe plethera of shoebox condos in Toronto attest to this fact. Then people wonder why birth rates are so low when the only options are having a baby while living in a 1 bdrm condo with a galley kitchen, or moving hours away from your job.
- philliphaydon 4y agoI honestly donno a lot about the US and it’s “projects”, but my understanding is large blocks of units in the US or the west tend to be built and left to rot. Other than Singapore are there any blocks of units that don’t get run down over time and left to rot? (Seriously question as I’m curious)
- MonkeyMalarky 4y agoCooperative housing where the tenants are the owners.
- llampx 4y agoEvery city in Europe?
- josho 4y agoOh 100 units are still built. But they are sold as condos targeting upper middle class as those are more profitable for builders to sell. And these are not affordable for many. We need policy that requires mixed units. Some for the affluent, some for service workers, etc.