9 ms·

If it doesn't collapse, then society may collapse? Like the sibling comment mentioned, you can only push this too far, and I think it's pushed too far to be ver

by csomar 4y ago

If it doesn't collapse, then society may collapse? Like the sibling comment mentioned, you can only push this too far, and I think it's pushed too far to be very alarming. And housing is expensive by design and not by constraint. I'm staying in KL, a comparatively cheap place by Western standards. The housing market is crap here from a seller perspective as you have an over-supply of condos. That, despite the large amount of foreigners living here. You can fix Western supply issue by allowing high-density condos nearby cities. Young people will prefer to live in these 20-sqm things (and have shared amenities/no car) than lose a significant percentage of their income to housing. Of course, some of the powers are holding on this because it'll affect their artificially made limited supply of houses.

icelancer 4y ago
> Young people will prefer to live in these 20-sqm things (and have shared amenities/no car) than lose a significant percentage of their income to housing. Of course, some of the powers are holding on this because it'll affect their artificially made limited supply of houses. The people most vocally opposed to these buildings (which I support) in the United States are liberals/progressives who say those types of living situations are unacceptable, and hold out for the magic beans of large apartments/houses at well-below market prices. Unsurprisingly, this only makes prices go up.
- neerd 4y ago
  [Citation needed]
f6v 4y ago
> If it doesn't collapse, then society may collapse? Like the sibling comment mentioned, you can only push this too far, and I think it's pushed too far to be very alarming. First off, what are they going to do? It’s the same in most big cities(1 million+). Second, those working remotely can always move from Munich to Leipzig (where OP can rent 3bd for the price of his Munich studio). I don’t see society collapse happening. Just need a bit of population redistribution.
jjav 4y ago
> If it doesn't collapse, then society may collapse? But there are plenty very cheap areas to buy houses or rent. Sure, many people don't want to live there, that's why it's cheap today. But it is a possibility nonetheless, one that is better than collapsing society. I'm always honestly confused why today it is seen as impossible to move to a cheap area? People have been doing this for generations (centuries?). It's never the most fun solution, but it is a solution. When I was in my 20s I wanted to live in Manhattan more than anything in the world. But I was never able to make it happen, it was too crazy expensive even back then. Eventually I gave up on that dream and moved to a place that was cheap and was able to buy a house no problem. It's no Manhattan, but it is home and has been a good place to live for decades now. In hindsight it was a great decision to move away and buy a home in a cheap area instead of banging my head against the impossible real estate market of NYC. It's always an option to move to a cheaper location!
- EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y ago
  What really attracts people to those places? Cuisine? Night life? Tinder opportunities?
  - illiarian 4y ago
    That you have more shops than one. More restaurants than one. Theaters. Clubs. Sports. Connectivity. Places and activities for kids. Places for hobbies. Concerts. Other various activities and events. There are significantly more of each in a big citu.
    - cudgy 4y ago
      > That you have more shops than one. More restaurants than one. Theaters. Clubs. Sports. Connectivity. Places and activities for kids. Places for hobbies. Concerts. Other various activities and events. Then open a shop, start a restaurant, start a theatre group, gather some kids for sports, organize some concerts, and become an active member of your community, instead of expecting it to be handed to you on a platter.
TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
A lot of service industry people can't afford a long commute. So even if the property is cheap X hours out, they still can't afford to live there. And that's how you get what you're seeing in many cities - uninhabited property deserts where the houses/apts are nominally inflating in value, but most people can't afford to live there. And those can afford it don't want to because there's no one around to keep the lights on for them. Portugal is threatening to repossess empty properties through compulsory purchase. That's drastic and not very popular - especially with property speculators - but govs are going to be faced with a choice between that kind of drastic action and cities which gradually empty of people.
- PedroBatista 4y ago
  It’s compulsory renting, not selling/purchase. Either way it’s yet another ridiculous move from the left ( in this case ) that doesn’t solve anything and it’s feasible only in the minds who never had a real job outside politics.
realityking 4y ago
I‘m in the process of buying a ~22sqm micro apartment in Berlin. One of 265 units in one building. Admittedly not in the outskirts but pretty central. Rents are pretty insane (~900-1200€/month, fully furnished, incl. internet and everything). The only places that are cheap are either government subsidized, old contracts with rent protection, or old not modernized buildings.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
avidphantasm 4y ago
An answer could be land trusts. A land trust that is sufficiently capitalized would be a capital partner to help buyers buy at current market rates. When these new buyers sell, the land trust stipulates the price they can sell at. We have these to a limited extent in New England, and they may exist elsewhere. The problem is, at this point, only a currency producing entity like the Fed would seem to have the wherewithal to capitalize such an endeavor at a scale needed to substantially change things.

by csomar 4y ago

icelancer 4y ago

> Young people will prefer to live in these 20-sqm things (and have shared amenities/no car) than lose a significant percentage of their income to housing. Of course, some of the powers are holding on this because it'll affect their artificially made limited supply of houses. The people most vocally opposed to these buildings (which I support) in the United States are liberals/progressives who say those types of living situations are unacceptable, and hold out for the magic beans of large apartments/houses at well-below market prices. Unsurprisingly, this only makes prices go up.

neerd 4y ago
[Citation needed]

f6v 4y ago

> If it doesn't collapse, then society may collapse? Like the sibling comment mentioned, you can only push this too far, and I think it's pushed too far to be very alarming. First off, what are they going to do? It’s the same in most big cities(1 million+). Second, those working remotely can always move from Munich to Leipzig (where OP can rent 3bd for the price of his Munich studio). I don’t see society collapse happening. Just need a bit of population redistribution.

jjav 4y ago

> If it doesn't collapse, then society may collapse? But there are plenty very cheap areas to buy houses or rent. Sure, many people don't want to live there, that's why it's cheap today. But it is a possibility nonetheless, one that is better than collapsing society. I'm always honestly confused why today it is seen as impossible to move to a cheap area? People have been doing this for generations (centuries?). It's never the most fun solution, but it is a solution. When I was in my 20s I wanted to live in Manhattan more than anything in the world. But I was never able to make it happen, it was too crazy expensive even back then. Eventually I gave up on that dream and moved to a place that was cheap and was able to buy a house no problem. It's no Manhattan, but it is home and has been a good place to live for decades now. In hindsight it was a great decision to move away and buy a home in a cheap area instead of banging my head against the impossible real estate market of NYC. It's always an option to move to a cheaper location!

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y ago
What really attracts people to those places? Cuisine? Night life? Tinder opportunities?
- illiarian 4y ago
  That you have more shops than one. More restaurants than one. Theaters. Clubs. Sports. Connectivity. Places and activities for kids. Places for hobbies. Concerts. Other various activities and events. There are significantly more of each in a big citu.
  - cudgy 4y ago
    > That you have more shops than one. More restaurants than one. Theaters. Clubs. Sports. Connectivity. Places and activities for kids. Places for hobbies. Concerts. Other various activities and events. Then open a shop, start a restaurant, start a theatre group, gather some kids for sports, organize some concerts, and become an active member of your community, instead of expecting it to be handed to you on a platter.

TheOtherHobbes 4y ago

A lot of service industry people can't afford a long commute. So even if the property is cheap X hours out, they still can't afford to live there. And that's how you get what you're seeing in many cities - uninhabited property deserts where the houses/apts are nominally inflating in value, but most people can't afford to live there. And those can afford it don't want to because there's no one around to keep the lights on for them. Portugal is threatening to repossess empty properties through compulsory purchase. That's drastic and not very popular - especially with property speculators - but govs are going to be faced with a choice between that kind of drastic action and cities which gradually empty of people.

PedroBatista 4y ago
It’s compulsory renting, not selling/purchase. Either way it’s yet another ridiculous move from the left ( in this case ) that doesn’t solve anything and it’s feasible only in the minds who never had a real job outside politics.

realityking 4y ago

I‘m in the process of buying a ~22sqm micro apartment in Berlin. One of 265 units in one building. Admittedly not in the outskirts but pretty central. Rents are pretty insane (~900-1200€/month, fully furnished, incl. internet and everything). The only places that are cheap are either government subsidized, old contracts with rent protection, or old not modernized buildings.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

avidphantasm 4y ago

An answer could be land trusts. A land trust that is sufficiently capitalized would be a capital partner to help buyers buy at current market rates. When these new buyers sell, the land trust stipulates the price they can sell at. We have these to a limited extent in New England, and they may exist elsewhere. The problem is, at this point, only a currency producing entity like the Fed would seem to have the wherewithal to capitalize such an endeavor at a scale needed to substantially change things.