3 ms·
I'm not sure this is exactly true though. There's plenty of (common) ways to build intentionally expensive housing, whether that's large minimum square footage
by noirbot 4y ago
I'm not sure this is exactly true though. There's plenty of (common) ways to build intentionally expensive housing, whether that's large minimum square footage or fancy shared amenities that up the cost of living there.
There's certainly demand for those things, and it's probably more profitable to saturate the most expensive "high rent" portions of the market first, but it's worth having incentives to also build smaller 1-bedroom places, or complexes without a pool, or without hardwood or stone floors.
- eapressoandcats 4y agoThe economics of this have been well observed in the car industry. Car makers prioritize luxury cars with higher margins when there is a restriction on how many cars they manufacture (due to supply or legal constraints), but if there is abundance, the lower end of the market is well served because there’s just more overall volume there.
- noirbot 4y agoI agree - I'm not trying to imply that no cheaper housing would ever be built if we made it easier to build, but that, as you say with cars, it's more likely to happen later as the restrictions let up. For a community or country, however, there's value in trying to serve people of all economic levels, and not simply serve the needs of the richest first. This is especially true when you're talking about building a city or neighborhood where there's a finite amount of land near a train station on highway. If you wait for builders to "get around to" building cheaper houses, they'll be off in their own area instead of intermingled in the communities that they likely work and go to school in.