5 ms·

What about this is invisible? I've heard this touted as the reason for a housing shortage for as long as I can remember.

raldi 3y ago
Have you had many conversations on the topic with the typical person on the street? I have (among other things, I’ve collected signatures for ballot measures), and I think about as many people think high housing prices are caused by allowing new development as restricting it.
- anovikov 3y ago
  How can someone think that? How can increase of supply increase prices? What's the logic behind that perception?
  - raldi 3y ago
    They mistake correlation (new buildings going up as housing prices increase) and causation.
    - AlanSE 3y ago
      Also, builders want to build high-margin houses, not low-margin houses. Also, high-margin housing gets advertised, low-margin housing does not.
  - Aunche 3y ago
    People see newly constructed "luxury" housing. They also see techies that can outbid them on rent. They mix up cause and effect and assume that it's the luxury housing that's bringing in all the techies rather than vice versa.
  - bitsage 3y ago
    Development can sometimes increase demand for previously blighted urban areas. A few years ago, I used to live in expensive re-purposed lofts in an area of Boston metro which was in disrepair in the 90s. There’s a similar story for Bushwick and Williamsburg in NYC. However, by the time an area has become popular, restricting development will only hurt rent affordability. I guess some would like to prevent their neighborhoods from becoming popular in the first place though.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    The logic basically comes down to concepts of induced demand, demographic shift, and gentrification. A community can improve on average while some people see less of that benefit.
- AlanSE 3y ago
  They see new builds hitting the market and look at the (aspirational) price put there by the builder. It's a borderline conspiracy that Zillow lists certain high-end new developments for a year (before they're built) which pollutes the "for sale" housing inventory. Whereas the "recently sold" is the best metric of how things actually are, the search options don't allow you to get an accurate market sense from these. After all, the app's purpose is not to give you an accurate sense of the market.
- hgsgm 3y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentrification https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentrification
- artsytrashcan 3y ago
  "New development" covers a wide range of development types. Most of the types that are "allowed" to be developed - per regulation, public investment, what does and doesn't trigger the NIMBY predatory instinct - are types that raise "market rates" like low-density SFH and luxury condos.* The government could "radically incentivize" developers to build high-density housing with basic finishes and fewer amenities, to be sold or rented at affordable rates, but that bumps up against https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36632171's https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36632171's impeccably correct observation: prices are high because the people who own the housing stock want them to be high. Inventory influences a fraction of the cost. *(That is, however far you're convinced that there even is a market; for rent, thanks to "discounts" that allow property owners to avoid actually advertising lower rates, supply and demand don't exist, only the imperative to raise rates annually.)
bgm1975 3y ago
It’s “invisible” in that it’s one of those things people (especially property owners) prefer not to talk or think about. Like how most people grossly discriminate based on perceived appearance or attractiveness. No one wants to admit that they are part of the problem.
nerdponx 3y ago
It's also just not true in a lot of areas. I live in an area where nearly every house is already an apartment building or a 100-year old mansion converted to condos or apartments. New construction is all multi-family and transit-oriented. Prices are still high because there's just too many damn people trying to live here. The problem is not that there isn't enough housing in any one particular area. There are a lot of issues with the argument that everyone everywhere just needs to build as much as possible, no matter what, and it's disingenuous to any such argument as NIMBYism. The problem is that there aren't enough nice places that are actually comfortable to live: good access to transit, access to green spaces, not too much traffic, access to shopping and grocery stores, etc. This is broadly because of how American cities and towns are designed.
- raldi 3y ago
  Tokyo meets all of your listed criteria (though prohibiting on-street car storage is a big part of that) and they’ve been able to keep prices reasonable by allowing supply to meet demand. I think a lot of urbanists want American cities to grow in that direction: way more housing, huge transit investments, less subsidy for driving.
  - hgsgm 3y ago
    Tokyo prices are reasonable? Only per unit not per square meter.
brodouevencode 3y ago
In certain places, yes.
dang 3y ago
Ok, we've taken invisibility out of the title above.

raldi 3y ago

Have you had many conversations on the topic with the typical person on the street? I have (among other things, I’ve collected signatures for ballot measures), and I think about as many people think high housing prices are caused by allowing new development as restricting it.

anovikov 3y ago
How can someone think that? How can increase of supply increase prices? What's the logic behind that perception?
- raldi 3y ago
  They mistake correlation (new buildings going up as housing prices increase) and causation.
  - AlanSE 3y ago
    Also, builders want to build high-margin houses, not low-margin houses. Also, high-margin housing gets advertised, low-margin housing does not.
- Aunche 3y ago
  People see newly constructed "luxury" housing. They also see techies that can outbid them on rent. They mix up cause and effect and assume that it's the luxury housing that's bringing in all the techies rather than vice versa.
- bitsage 3y ago
  Development can sometimes increase demand for previously blighted urban areas. A few years ago, I used to live in expensive re-purposed lofts in an area of Boston metro which was in disrepair in the 90s. There’s a similar story for Bushwick and Williamsburg in NYC. However, by the time an area has become popular, restricting development will only hurt rent affordability. I guess some would like to prevent their neighborhoods from becoming popular in the first place though.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  The logic basically comes down to concepts of induced demand, demographic shift, and gentrification. A community can improve on average while some people see less of that benefit.
AlanSE 3y ago
They see new builds hitting the market and look at the (aspirational) price put there by the builder. It's a borderline conspiracy that Zillow lists certain high-end new developments for a year (before they're built) which pollutes the "for sale" housing inventory. Whereas the "recently sold" is the best metric of how things actually are, the search options don't allow you to get an accurate market sense from these. After all, the app's purpose is not to give you an accurate sense of the market.
hgsgm 3y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentrification https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentrification
artsytrashcan 3y ago
"New development" covers a wide range of development types. Most of the types that are "allowed" to be developed - per regulation, public investment, what does and doesn't trigger the NIMBY predatory instinct - are types that raise "market rates" like low-density SFH and luxury condos.* The government could "radically incentivize" developers to build high-density housing with basic finishes and fewer amenities, to be sold or rented at affordable rates, but that bumps up against https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36632171's https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36632171's impeccably correct observation: prices are high because the people who own the housing stock want them to be high. Inventory influences a fraction of the cost. *(That is, however far you're convinced that there even is a market; for rent, thanks to "discounts" that allow property owners to avoid actually advertising lower rates, supply and demand don't exist, only the imperative to raise rates annually.)

bgm1975 3y ago

It’s “invisible” in that it’s one of those things people (especially property owners) prefer not to talk or think about. Like how most people grossly discriminate based on perceived appearance or attractiveness. No one wants to admit that they are part of the problem.

nerdponx 3y ago

It's also just not true in a lot of areas. I live in an area where nearly every house is already an apartment building or a 100-year old mansion converted to condos or apartments. New construction is all multi-family and transit-oriented. Prices are still high because there's just too many damn people trying to live here. The problem is not that there isn't enough housing in any one particular area. There are a lot of issues with the argument that everyone everywhere just needs to build as much as possible, no matter what, and it's disingenuous to any such argument as NIMBYism. The problem is that there aren't enough nice places that are actually comfortable to live: good access to transit, access to green spaces, not too much traffic, access to shopping and grocery stores, etc. This is broadly because of how American cities and towns are designed.

raldi 3y ago
Tokyo meets all of your listed criteria (though prohibiting on-street car storage is a big part of that) and they’ve been able to keep prices reasonable by allowing supply to meet demand. I think a lot of urbanists want American cities to grow in that direction: way more housing, huge transit investments, less subsidy for driving.
- hgsgm 3y ago
  Tokyo prices are reasonable? Only per unit not per square meter.

brodouevencode 3y ago

In certain places, yes.

dang 3y ago

Ok, we've taken invisibility out of the title above.