3 ms·

Thanks for the details! I'm asking because the overall rate is historically super low, and that kind of behavior from the landlords seems ... bananas - to use t

by pas 3y ago

Thanks for the details! I'm asking because the overall rate is historically super low, and that kind of behavior from the landlords seems ... bananas - to use the terminus technicus. (But of course, maybe during ZIRP it was not a problem to try to experiment with various crazy - and inhumane - pricing schemes.) https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHVRUSQ156N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHVRUSQ156N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/EVACANTUSQ176N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/EVACANTUSQ176N (estimated absolute number) https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/EOFFMARUSQ176N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/EOFFMARUSQ176N (held off the market)

vineyardmike 3y ago
Yea it was crazy. The data you showed says there were 7 million units held off-market. My building had only a few hundred tops. I wonder if there is more to the story though. I think that the building would be less desirable if it was full. Skyscrapers already have long lines for elevators, and common spaces get a lot of wear and tear from so many people in small areas. I wonder if they keep it below capacity while they can charge a “newness premium”, and once that fades they add extra units to the market to increase revenue.
- pas 3y ago
  those held off market usually means summer houses and the like. and just natural turnover - people moving, outgrowing their home (or on the other end when someone leaves the home, or pass away) - leads to a vacancy of millions of homes. people usually harp about this a lot, and I also think it would be good to get people into homes, even if temporary, faster. but the effective solution is land value tax, and high density. everything else is just bad and worse trade-offs (like rent control and various machinations with 'affordable' units, and so on). regarding highrises, I noticed that they mostly look the worst when they are new. everyone is moving in, elevators are full of scratches. there's a lot of ongoing construction (inevitably there will be someone from a hundred tenants, who wants to change something). and then eventually it settles into some steady state. ... so this forced cycling or whatever this management company did is just 120% WTF to me.

by pas 3y ago

vineyardmike 3y ago

Yea it was crazy. The data you showed says there were 7 million units held off-market. My building had only a few hundred tops. I wonder if there is more to the story though. I think that the building would be less desirable if it was full. Skyscrapers already have long lines for elevators, and common spaces get a lot of wear and tear from so many people in small areas. I wonder if they keep it below capacity while they can charge a “newness premium”, and once that fades they add extra units to the market to increase revenue.

pas 3y ago
those held off market usually means summer houses and the like. and just natural turnover - people moving, outgrowing their home (or on the other end when someone leaves the home, or pass away) - leads to a vacancy of millions of homes. people usually harp about this a lot, and I also think it would be good to get people into homes, even if temporary, faster. but the effective solution is land value tax, and high density. everything else is just bad and worse trade-offs (like rent control and various machinations with 'affordable' units, and so on). regarding highrises, I noticed that they mostly look the worst when they are new. everyone is moving in, elevators are full of scratches. there's a lot of ongoing construction (inevitably there will be someone from a hundred tenants, who wants to change something). and then eventually it settles into some steady state. ... so this forced cycling or whatever this management company did is just 120% WTF to me.