3 ms·

IOW, the law of supply and demand is wrong. LOL.

cyberax 2y ago
When it comes to housing? Yes. The naive version is wrong. I challenge you to find a counterexample. Go on. A large city (>200k population) that lowered housing prices by increasing density. The mechanism for this failure is also long known: induced demand.
- UncleMeat 2y ago
  Minneapolis. Built a lot more housing. Rents have fallen.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  Housing doesn't induce demand in cities. Jobs induce demand in cities. And to a lesser degree, amenities and services. > A large city (>200k population) that lowered housing prices by increasing density. Tokyo, any city in China Overbuilding in Tokyo lowered prices so much the entire Japanese economy collapsed, and a similar thing seems to be happening in China now.
  - cyberax 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - bryanlarsen 2y ago
      Tokyo before 1995. > And what do you think concentrates jobs in ever-densifying cities? It's the areas with the least available housing that get the most jobs, so the answer is "anything but housing". Ignoring China is a total cop out, because it's pretty much the only location in the world that currently has a significant housing surplus.
      - AstralStorm 2y ago
        Besides Singapore with its targeted housing policy. There's not exactly surplus but sufficient numbers. Really though, housing exists but is not available. Mostly due to expense and being redirected to short term rentals.
        cyberax 2y ago
        Singapore: https://tradingeconomics.com/singapore/housing-index https://tradingeconomics.com/singapore/housing-index - prices are growing. Like, can you do at least a 5 second google check?!?
      - cyberax 2y ago
        > Tokyo before 1995. Great, and then the history stopped at 1995? > It's the areas with the least available housing that get the most jobs, so the answer is "anything but housing". The answer is: force jobs out of dense hellscapes (SF, NYC). Via taxes and incentives. > Ignoring China is a total cop out, because it's pretty much the only location in the world that currently has a significant housing surplus. I don't have data for China. So I can't tell if it's true or not. It's also not a country with a full market economy and free movement of people.
  - smelendez 2y ago
    It’s more complicated than that, though. There’s a middle ground where more affordable housing absolutely attracts residents and causes a housing shortage. It’s more obvious in neighborhoods. Think of areas in Brooklyn where luxury housing gets built. People see their friends moving there and rich people amenities moving in, and bid up the price of existing, cheaper housing. That can happen with cities too. Your friends move to City X because it’s cheap, you visit and love it, move there even though it’s not as cheap anymore. The influx of new residents creates new amenities including jobs, housing doesn’t keep up, now it’s more expensive.
    - cyberax 2y ago
      > It’s more complicated than that, though. It's really not. Really. Some things are just black&white. > There’s a middle ground where more affordable housing absolutely attracts residents and causes a housing shortage. Nope. There isn't. You won't build "affordable" housing by increasing density. You can build subsidized housing projects, where somebody _else_ pays for them. But that's it. Want cheaper housing? Build suburbs and exurbs, and force companies to spread out of The Downtowns. There are no other options.
- maxerickson 2y ago
  Austin, Texas.
  - WillPostForFood 2y ago
    It hasn't, really. Austin housing price decline is just reversion to the mean after the abnormal spike during Covid. And it is still 35% higher than pre-covid.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      Ahhh, I see we're doing "no true housing price decline". Sorry, didn't realize, disregard my comment upthread.
      - mionhe 2y ago
        Serious question: did either city increase housing density significantly?
        tptacek 2y ago
        Yes, Minneapolis especially.
        cyberax 2y ago
        Yes. It got shittier AND more expensive. Great win. Rents are also up, looks like the blog post from a propaganda rag is using data from a rental website. Edit: here's a chart with CPI and rent indexes: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1BXUx https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1BXUx
        tptacek 2y ago
        When the price of something increases less than inflation, it has not gotten "more expensive". This feels like a straightforward point for an avowed capitalist who elsewhere on the thread railed against "commies".
- tptacek 2y ago
  Austin and Minneapolis. Recently. You're welcome.
  - cyberax 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - tptacek 2y ago
      Abolishing SFZ, and allowing people to build stuff on their own property, as opposed to allowing communities to stop them, is literally the opposite of communism.
      - cyberax 2y ago
        I have no problem if you want to build a 10-story house for your family. No problem. But the second you start building houses without parking (so street parking becomes extinct) and without extending road infrastructure, it's not just you. Don't abuse shared resources.
        tptacek 2y ago
        Sounds pretty socialist to me. That's fine! But you can't dunk on your opponents for being "commies" when you're the one making the communitarian arguments.
        cyberax 2y ago
        My opinion is that the free market is the best way to allocate resources. However, it can't price externalities, so the externalities need to be regulated. Also, the social safety net should exist, but work within the free market.
        tptacek 2y ago
        Yeah, so you get that these aren't laissez-faire arguments you're making right? Are you sure you don't also perhaps believe in the labor theory of value? Read up on it! You might find it congenial.
- philwelch 2y ago
  > A large city (>200k population) that lowered housing prices by increasing density. Austin
  - cyberax 2y ago
    Austin has not materially increased density. And it'll go back up the next year.
- Aloisius 2y ago
  Lowered in absolute terms or lowered compared to what it would have been absent an increase in housing? Due to inflation, the stickiness of prices and the time it takes to build, it's hard to lower the nominal price city-wide. The latter, meanwhile, isn't plain to see. Making this more complicated to see is that new construction happens tends to happen more during shortages when rents are already going on. Induced demand is something that happens with things that have zero price to use, like highways, not housing. Research shows quite the opposite. When new construction creates more vacancies, rents in surrounding area come down.
  - cyberax 2y ago
    > Lowered in absolute terms or lowered compared to what it would have been absent an increase in housing? Two can play this game. Let's compare the rapidly enshittifying Seattle and SF. Seattle has increased the amount of housing units by 25% over the last 12 years. SF by 3%. Yet prices grew FASTER in Seattle than in SF. Just imagine how better Seattle would have been if it hasn't built all those residential towers?
    - buttercraft 2y ago
      I guess the math seems easy when you ignore most of the variables...
      - cyberax 2y ago
        Which ones I'm ignoring?
        mixmastamyk 2y ago
        Population growth is the major one, and time-frame, behind on building for decades. Tons of pent up demand and a nationwide problem, so people move when they can. Inflation already mentioned, govt subsidies. Honestly, if you can't think four-dimensionally and/or understand derivatives you have no business arguing in a housing thread. Not to mention what arguing against econ 101 makes you look like. Econ-denier is the new flat-earther.

When it comes to housing? Yes. The naive version is wrong. I challenge you to find a counterexample. Go on. A large city (>200k population) that lowered housing prices by increasing density. The mechanism for this failure is also long known: induced demand.

UncleMeat 2y ago
Minneapolis. Built a lot more housing. Rents have fallen.
bryanlarsen 2y ago
Housing doesn't induce demand in cities. Jobs induce demand in cities. And to a lesser degree, amenities and services. > A large city (>200k population) that lowered housing prices by increasing density. Tokyo, any city in China Overbuilding in Tokyo lowered prices so much the entire Japanese economy collapsed, and a similar thing seems to be happening in China now.
- cyberax 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - bryanlarsen 2y ago
    Tokyo before 1995. > And what do you think concentrates jobs in ever-densifying cities? It's the areas with the least available housing that get the most jobs, so the answer is "anything but housing". Ignoring China is a total cop out, because it's pretty much the only location in the world that currently has a significant housing surplus.
    - AstralStorm 2y ago
      Besides Singapore with its targeted housing policy. There's not exactly surplus but sufficient numbers. Really though, housing exists but is not available. Mostly due to expense and being redirected to short term rentals.
      - cyberax 2y ago
        Singapore: https://tradingeconomics.com/singapore/housing-index https://tradingeconomics.com/singapore/housing-index - prices are growing. Like, can you do at least a 5 second google check?!?
    - cyberax 2y ago
      > Tokyo before 1995. Great, and then the history stopped at 1995? > It's the areas with the least available housing that get the most jobs, so the answer is "anything but housing". The answer is: force jobs out of dense hellscapes (SF, NYC). Via taxes and incentives. > Ignoring China is a total cop out, because it's pretty much the only location in the world that currently has a significant housing surplus. I don't have data for China. So I can't tell if it's true or not. It's also not a country with a full market economy and free movement of people.
- smelendez 2y ago
  It’s more complicated than that, though. There’s a middle ground where more affordable housing absolutely attracts residents and causes a housing shortage. It’s more obvious in neighborhoods. Think of areas in Brooklyn where luxury housing gets built. People see their friends moving there and rich people amenities moving in, and bid up the price of existing, cheaper housing. That can happen with cities too. Your friends move to City X because it’s cheap, you visit and love it, move there even though it’s not as cheap anymore. The influx of new residents creates new amenities including jobs, housing doesn’t keep up, now it’s more expensive.
  - cyberax 2y ago
    > It’s more complicated than that, though. It's really not. Really. Some things are just black&white. > There’s a middle ground where more affordable housing absolutely attracts residents and causes a housing shortage. Nope. There isn't. You won't build "affordable" housing by increasing density. You can build subsidized housing projects, where somebody _else_ pays for them. But that's it. Want cheaper housing? Build suburbs and exurbs, and force companies to spread out of The Downtowns. There are no other options.
maxerickson 2y ago
Austin, Texas.
- WillPostForFood 2y ago
  It hasn't, really. Austin housing price decline is just reversion to the mean after the abnormal spike during Covid. And it is still 35% higher than pre-covid.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    Ahhh, I see we're doing "no true housing price decline". Sorry, didn't realize, disregard my comment upthread.
    - mionhe 2y ago
      Serious question: did either city increase housing density significantly?
      - tptacek 2y ago
        Yes, Minneapolis especially.
        cyberax 2y ago
        Yes. It got shittier AND more expensive. Great win. Rents are also up, looks like the blog post from a propaganda rag is using data from a rental website. Edit: here's a chart with CPI and rent indexes: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1BXUx https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1BXUx
        tptacek 2y ago
        When the price of something increases less than inflation, it has not gotten "more expensive". This feels like a straightforward point for an avowed capitalist who elsewhere on the thread railed against "commies".
tptacek 2y ago
Austin and Minneapolis. Recently. You're welcome.
- cyberax 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - tptacek 2y ago
    Abolishing SFZ, and allowing people to build stuff on their own property, as opposed to allowing communities to stop them, is literally the opposite of communism.
    - cyberax 2y ago
      I have no problem if you want to build a 10-story house for your family. No problem. But the second you start building houses without parking (so street parking becomes extinct) and without extending road infrastructure, it's not just you. Don't abuse shared resources.
      - tptacek 2y ago
        Sounds pretty socialist to me. That's fine! But you can't dunk on your opponents for being "commies" when you're the one making the communitarian arguments.
        cyberax 2y ago
        My opinion is that the free market is the best way to allocate resources. However, it can't price externalities, so the externalities need to be regulated. Also, the social safety net should exist, but work within the free market.
        tptacek 2y ago
        Yeah, so you get that these aren't laissez-faire arguments you're making right? Are you sure you don't also perhaps believe in the labor theory of value? Read up on it! You might find it congenial.
philwelch 2y ago
> A large city (>200k population) that lowered housing prices by increasing density. Austin
- cyberax 2y ago
  Austin has not materially increased density. And it'll go back up the next year.
Aloisius 2y ago
Lowered in absolute terms or lowered compared to what it would have been absent an increase in housing? Due to inflation, the stickiness of prices and the time it takes to build, it's hard to lower the nominal price city-wide. The latter, meanwhile, isn't plain to see. Making this more complicated to see is that new construction happens tends to happen more during shortages when rents are already going on. Induced demand is something that happens with things that have zero price to use, like highways, not housing. Research shows quite the opposite. When new construction creates more vacancies, rents in surrounding area come down.
- cyberax 2y ago
  > Lowered in absolute terms or lowered compared to what it would have been absent an increase in housing? Two can play this game. Let's compare the rapidly enshittifying Seattle and SF. Seattle has increased the amount of housing units by 25% over the last 12 years. SF by 3%. Yet prices grew FASTER in Seattle than in SF. Just imagine how better Seattle would have been if it hasn't built all those residential towers?
  - buttercraft 2y ago
    I guess the math seems easy when you ignore most of the variables...
    - cyberax 2y ago
      Which ones I'm ignoring?
      - mixmastamyk 2y ago
        Population growth is the major one, and time-frame, behind on building for decades. Tons of pent up demand and a nationwide problem, so people move when they can. Inflation already mentioned, govt subsidies. Honestly, if you can't think four-dimensionally and/or understand derivatives you have no business arguing in a housing thread. Not to mention what arguing against econ 101 makes you look like. Econ-denier is the new flat-earther.