3 ms·

But, there generally is enough housing in the US. It’s just not proportionately distributed where people want to live and at prices people want to pay (for the

But, there generally is enough housing in the US. It’s just not proportionately distributed where people want to live and at prices people want to pay (for the location and price). There is a surplus of abandoned housing in Baltimore, Detroit, and lots of other rust belt towns. But buying an old abandoned house in Detroit means massive investment in maintenance, refurb, and utilities (Detroit utilities are provisioned+allocated+staffed for 2.5 million residents, but half of those left, leaving the remaining few paying 2x per capita). Meanwhile the residents of affluent suburbs threaten their city representatives/ staffers to make sure they don’t allow more residents to move there.

antisthenes 2y ago
Yep, it turns out the revealed preference of US people as a whole is they really like infrastructure and living in places where there are good amenities to the point that they would rather share a rented apartment, than own something out of the way. I guess with a commute and dependents that's really the only way to make it work.
- bsder 2y ago
  > rather share a rented apartment, than own something out of the way. Or is it simply the standard demographic problem of "the vast majority of population is in the cities so the vast majority of <pick any characteristic> is mostly in the cities"? In addition, if you are poor, owning a car is relatively expensive. Not owning a car is an option in some US cities; it's simply a non-starter anywhere suburban or worse. However, as the article points out, Houston has apparently done better than most simply because it has lots and lots of housing supply. Of course, the downside of that is that Houston is also the poster child for sprawl having not one, not two, not three but effectively four beltways around the city perimiters.
  - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
    Beijing has 5 urban ring roads and 2 ex-urban ones. Housing is still expensive, but a lot of apartments are just investments. At least the official homeless rate is zero, and lots of people can find affordable subterranean rooms for rent (ant tribe housing).
- kiba 2y ago
  It's also unsurprisingly where the jobs are.
tptacek 2y ago
There's also, in every market, a substantial number of vacant homes owing to transaction latency: houses are vacant after their owners have moved on, but before the new owners or renters move in. You can imagine the system with literally no vacancies, and how it would(n't) work.
- protocolture 2y ago
  100%. Any "Oh look at all the spare housing" needs to be scrutinised.
- echoangle 2y ago
  What does substantial mean here? Does this value have to be over 5%? Because if you move every 2 years, that would be about 36 days of vacancy per move. Is that lower than the average?
  - tptacek 2y ago
    In urban markets, as opposed to rural towns that have high vacancies because everyone has moved away over the last 40 years and nobody wants to move there, the number you're looking for is "market vacancies".
shiroiushi 2y ago
>There is a surplus of abandoned housing in Baltimore, Detroit, and lots of other rust belt towns. That's not housing. "Housing" means places where people are able to live. If you've seen pictures of the abandoned houses in Detroit, you'd know that these simply do not meet the definition. No, they don't need investment in refurb, they need to be demolished; they're completely unsuitable for human habitation after so many years of neglect and decay, and it would make no economic sense at all to try to save them.
- thephyber 2y ago
  Meh. You’re making a distinction without a difference. It’s a dwelling on a parcel zoned for a residence. Lots of rebuilds in my neighborhood are full demolitions. The reason people don’t buy and refurb the Detroit / Baltimore stock of dilapidated properties is because (1) chain of custody it hard to identify because the property has been abandoned so long and (2) there are lots of unknown risks (liens, high utilities costs, neighborhoods full of similar dilapidated homes, undesirable neighbors).
jnwatson 2y ago
Sure, orthogonal to the top 3 characteristics of housing value (location, location, and location), there is plenty of housing. Even cheaper than Detroit and Baltimore, there's plenty of mostly empty apartment towers across China's cities. Why don't we just relocate everyone there?
- thephyber 2y ago
  While true (about the Chinese tower vacancy rates), it is much less than you might expect. I heard an interview with the guy who popularized the Chinese Ghost Cities a decade or more ago. He has admitted that China has done a pretty good job at populating those dozens of tier 2 and 3 cities that he used to describe as ghost cities.
  - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
    Ordos new town is still a ghost town, at least until coal comes back. Tianjin can be counted on to always have a couple of ghost districts going on, not to mention the tallest ghost skyscraper in the world (Golden Finance 117). If you are into touring China, you can just go to see for yourself, but I don't recommend going to Ordos just to check out a ghost district.
Lammy 2y ago
I dislike the term “want to live” because it feels like it's framing as optional the need to live somewhere you can find a job.
- kasey_junk 2y ago
  Detroits unemployment rate is on par with the national one and less than hcol places like nyc.
- smileysteve 2y ago
  Somewhere you can find a job that pays a living wage. If you're on the edge of short term housing (month to month lease -> behind on utilities -> extended stay hotels, to a worst case in and out of a homeless shelter) you want to live in a location where your health is less at risk from the environment, mostly the cold. And so, Southern California, especially where there are some more social safety nets is desirable
- sir0010010 2y ago
  I agree with you and in addition I also really dislike trivializing having so many people have to move hundreds or thousands of miles away from their friends and family. This really burns communities and social support networks. It would be better if we could build as much housing as possible in and around existing cities rather than have the economics of scarce housing mandate that so many people have to move away.
Nasrudith 2y ago
There is a an observation I had about economically depressed areas. "If it (the housing) is too cheap, chances are you can't afford it." It goes beyond want at this point into not being suitable for living. Most people work for a living and if there aren't jobs in the area, then the housing is good only for retirees, disabled, or other beneficiaries of passive incomes. And even that is far from ideal as the previous two tend to need advanced services like hospitals in order to survive.

antisthenes 2y ago

Yep, it turns out the revealed preference of US people as a whole is they really like infrastructure and living in places where there are good amenities to the point that they would rather share a rented apartment, than own something out of the way. I guess with a commute and dependents that's really the only way to make it work.

bsder 2y ago
> rather share a rented apartment, than own something out of the way. Or is it simply the standard demographic problem of "the vast majority of population is in the cities so the vast majority of <pick any characteristic> is mostly in the cities"? In addition, if you are poor, owning a car is relatively expensive. Not owning a car is an option in some US cities; it's simply a non-starter anywhere suburban or worse. However, as the article points out, Houston has apparently done better than most simply because it has lots and lots of housing supply. Of course, the downside of that is that Houston is also the poster child for sprawl having not one, not two, not three but effectively four beltways around the city perimiters.
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  Beijing has 5 urban ring roads and 2 ex-urban ones. Housing is still expensive, but a lot of apartments are just investments. At least the official homeless rate is zero, and lots of people can find affordable subterranean rooms for rent (ant tribe housing).
kiba 2y ago
It's also unsurprisingly where the jobs are.

tptacek 2y ago

There's also, in every market, a substantial number of vacant homes owing to transaction latency: houses are vacant after their owners have moved on, but before the new owners or renters move in. You can imagine the system with literally no vacancies, and how it would(n't) work.

protocolture 2y ago
100%. Any "Oh look at all the spare housing" needs to be scrutinised.
echoangle 2y ago
What does substantial mean here? Does this value have to be over 5%? Because if you move every 2 years, that would be about 36 days of vacancy per move. Is that lower than the average?
- tptacek 2y ago
  In urban markets, as opposed to rural towns that have high vacancies because everyone has moved away over the last 40 years and nobody wants to move there, the number you're looking for is "market vacancies".

shiroiushi 2y ago

>There is a surplus of abandoned housing in Baltimore, Detroit, and lots of other rust belt towns. That's not housing. "Housing" means places where people are able to live. If you've seen pictures of the abandoned houses in Detroit, you'd know that these simply do not meet the definition. No, they don't need investment in refurb, they need to be demolished; they're completely unsuitable for human habitation after so many years of neglect and decay, and it would make no economic sense at all to try to save them.

thephyber 2y ago
Meh. You’re making a distinction without a difference. It’s a dwelling on a parcel zoned for a residence. Lots of rebuilds in my neighborhood are full demolitions. The reason people don’t buy and refurb the Detroit / Baltimore stock of dilapidated properties is because (1) chain of custody it hard to identify because the property has been abandoned so long and (2) there are lots of unknown risks (liens, high utilities costs, neighborhoods full of similar dilapidated homes, undesirable neighbors).

jnwatson 2y ago

Sure, orthogonal to the top 3 characteristics of housing value (location, location, and location), there is plenty of housing. Even cheaper than Detroit and Baltimore, there's plenty of mostly empty apartment towers across China's cities. Why don't we just relocate everyone there?

thephyber 2y ago
While true (about the Chinese tower vacancy rates), it is much less than you might expect. I heard an interview with the guy who popularized the Chinese Ghost Cities a decade or more ago. He has admitted that China has done a pretty good job at populating those dozens of tier 2 and 3 cities that he used to describe as ghost cities.
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  Ordos new town is still a ghost town, at least until coal comes back. Tianjin can be counted on to always have a couple of ghost districts going on, not to mention the tallest ghost skyscraper in the world (Golden Finance 117). If you are into touring China, you can just go to see for yourself, but I don't recommend going to Ordos just to check out a ghost district.

Lammy 2y ago

I dislike the term “want to live” because it feels like it's framing as optional the need to live somewhere you can find a job.

kasey_junk 2y ago
Detroits unemployment rate is on par with the national one and less than hcol places like nyc.
smileysteve 2y ago
Somewhere you can find a job that pays a living wage. If you're on the edge of short term housing (month to month lease -> behind on utilities -> extended stay hotels, to a worst case in and out of a homeless shelter) you want to live in a location where your health is less at risk from the environment, mostly the cold. And so, Southern California, especially where there are some more social safety nets is desirable
sir0010010 2y ago
I agree with you and in addition I also really dislike trivializing having so many people have to move hundreds or thousands of miles away from their friends and family. This really burns communities and social support networks. It would be better if we could build as much housing as possible in and around existing cities rather than have the economics of scarce housing mandate that so many people have to move away.

Nasrudith 2y ago

There is a an observation I had about economically depressed areas. "If it (the housing) is too cheap, chances are you can't afford it." It goes beyond want at this point into not being suitable for living. Most people work for a living and if there aren't jobs in the area, then the housing is good only for retirees, disabled, or other beneficiaries of passive incomes. And even that is far from ideal as the previous two tend to need advanced services like hospitals in order to survive.