3 ms·

> all we would seem to get are developers who want to sell luxury houses This is how it is in my part of the US. Not so much houses as large luxury apartment b

> all we would seem to get are developers who want to sell luxury houses This is how it is in my part of the US. Not so much houses as large luxury apartment buildings aimed at the wealthy (and being built with taxpayer subsidies). They are doing nothing to address the very real housing shortage.

bryanlarsen 2y ago
AFAICT, in my metro and others, pretty much all the cheap housing is luxury housing from ~100 years ago. Cheap housing built 100 years ago has been torn down and replaced, but the good stuff built 100 years ago is still standing and being used. The problem is that we weren't building luxury apartments 50 years ago, it was all single family housing. So there aren't any luxury apartments that can degrade into cheap housing. Building luxury apartments & condos now will help the cheap housing situation in 50 years time.
Cheer2171 2y ago
This is the second biggest piece of economics misinformation, behind people who believe their net income will go down if they get a raise into the next tax bracket. Just like cars, all new housing is luxury. No one working minimum wage can afford the cheapest new car on the lot. But those new cars get bought by people who sell their used cars.
- JohnFen 2y ago
  Yes, I understand this argument and it makes some logical sense. The issue is that when it comes to housing, it doesn't seem to be happening, at least not on the time scale of a couple of decades. Affordable housing is not increasing, and that's where the need actually is.
  - mixmastamyk 2y ago
    Yes, because of severe supply constraints in the previous decades, there are not enough old units to go around and get cheaper. Rather they refurbish and rebrand as luxury as well. As its usually illegal to build new ones, there is no competition.
culi 2y ago
What's considered a "luxury" apartment in Bay Area is considered normal in many other parts of the country. I've heard it's mostly a scheme to avoid certain regulations but I can't find anything from a quick lookup. Regardless, while searching for an apartment recently, the term "luxury" was completely meaningless. I found luxury apartments that were cheaper and/or had less amenities/features than "affordable" ones. The biggest factor seems (often slight) differences in location rather than differences in the quality of the apartment itself
- JohnFen 2y ago
  I'm not in the bay area, and I'm defining "luxury" by price point, not amenities or features. I should have used the term "luxury priced".

bryanlarsen 2y ago

AFAICT, in my metro and others, pretty much all the cheap housing is luxury housing from ~100 years ago. Cheap housing built 100 years ago has been torn down and replaced, but the good stuff built 100 years ago is still standing and being used. The problem is that we weren't building luxury apartments 50 years ago, it was all single family housing. So there aren't any luxury apartments that can degrade into cheap housing. Building luxury apartments & condos now will help the cheap housing situation in 50 years time.

Cheer2171 2y ago

This is the second biggest piece of economics misinformation, behind people who believe their net income will go down if they get a raise into the next tax bracket. Just like cars, all new housing is luxury. No one working minimum wage can afford the cheapest new car on the lot. But those new cars get bought by people who sell their used cars.

JohnFen 2y ago
Yes, I understand this argument and it makes some logical sense. The issue is that when it comes to housing, it doesn't seem to be happening, at least not on the time scale of a couple of decades. Affordable housing is not increasing, and that's where the need actually is.
- mixmastamyk 2y ago
  Yes, because of severe supply constraints in the previous decades, there are not enough old units to go around and get cheaper. Rather they refurbish and rebrand as luxury as well. As its usually illegal to build new ones, there is no competition.

culi 2y ago

What's considered a "luxury" apartment in Bay Area is considered normal in many other parts of the country. I've heard it's mostly a scheme to avoid certain regulations but I can't find anything from a quick lookup. Regardless, while searching for an apartment recently, the term "luxury" was completely meaningless. I found luxury apartments that were cheaper and/or had less amenities/features than "affordable" ones. The biggest factor seems (often slight) differences in location rather than differences in the quality of the apartment itself

JohnFen 2y ago
I'm not in the bay area, and I'm defining "luxury" by price point, not amenities or features. I should have used the term "luxury priced".