3 ms·
That's purely short term. Long term development is good for everybody's property values, in the exact opposite way that losing businesses and residents is bad
by majormajor 3y ago
That's purely short term.
Long term development is good for everybody's property values, in the exact opposite way that losing businesses and residents is bad for those property values. Phoenix vs Detroit, say.
"Demand" is a dynamic thing, it responds to changes in the built environment of a city, region, or nation. London didn't spring into being fully-formed and fully in-demand at today's levels. It found a virtuous (for property-owners financially) cycle of both increasing housing units and increasing population and demand for certain areas.
- aetherson 3y agoThere are in-demand cities that have relatively affordable housing (like Tokyo), that allow lots of housing to be built, and cities that have extraordinarily high costs of housing (like London) generally have a hard cap on housing development. While there is obviously some amount of this whole thing where more housing allows more people to come to a city which can in some circumstances drum up more jobs or whatever, I think it's a significant oversimplification to say that more housing increases property values in the long run. Ceteris paribus, more housing depresses property values. It is possible for there to be a feedback cycle where more people in the area increase the overall prosperity -- and thus property values -- of the area, but I do not think that generally more housing is the most important factor there.