2 ms·

There was plenty of homelessness in the era of tenements too.

• AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  If you have 1000 homeless and 2000 in tenements and then you ban the tenements and kick their former residents into the street, you have not done either of them a favor.
  • Macha 3y ago
    However, we're not talking about a situation where tenements are allowed and now disallowing them (which I agree would cause a shock in the market, but probably disagree about how long term it is). People who's lives are otherwise OK apart from an inability to afford housing tend to have support networks which provide them a better fallback option than living on the street, be that living with family, couch surfing, etc. Consequently, they tend not to get included in official homeless figures. The people who do get included in official homeless figures are going to have issues providing landlord the reassurances they need to rent to them, such as prior references, proof of employment, etc. etc. This is going to be true no matter how substandard the housing on the market is. Instead, allowing tenement-tier housing is likely to lead to a reduction in supply of what is now the bottom tier, as landlords of that tier of property reorganise existing properties to cram more people in, reducing standards of living.
    • AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > However, we're not talking about a situation where tenements are allowed and now disallowing them It's not the shock which is the problem. The set of people who could afford the tenements but can't afford larger units are not going to become able to afford them just because some time has passed. > People who's lives are otherwise OK apart from an inability to afford housing tend to have support networks which provide them a better fallback option than living on the street, be that living with family, couch surfing, etc. That just means the problem is bigger than the official numbers suggest. And mooching off your friends and family often creates resentment and friction, which leaves those people at risk of falling into the other group as soon as they have a falling out unless you can get them into their own stable housing. > The people who do get included in official homeless figures are going to have issues providing landlord the reassurances they need to rent to them, such as prior references, proof of employment, etc. etc. This is going to be true no matter how substandard the housing on the market is. That's not true. Lower cost units require less in the way of references because the landlord has less at risk when the value of the unit is lower, and has more trouble finding someone who wants to live in it. You can also reduce the prevalence of these requirements by not making it arduous for landlords to evict non-paying tenants, which is the primary reason they care about any of those things now. > Instead, allowing tenement-tier housing is likely to lead to a reduction in supply of what is now the bottom tier, as landlords of that tier of property reorganize existing properties to cram more people in, reducing standards of living. This is not a reduction in standard of living for the people who were previously homeless or the people who choose to live in those new units in exchange for lower rent. Having a smaller apartment in exchange for lower rent is not inherently a reduction in standard of living, and generally wouldn't be what someone chooses unless it isn't. The people who want to pay the existing rents for the type of units they're in now would be free to do so, if not get those units at a lower rent because the tenements have increased the number of available housing units and relieved some of the demand pressure on existing units.
• vkou 3y ago
  And without them, there could have always been more.