2 ms·
"Luxury housing" is a meaningless qualifier. New housing (market-rate) is always a luxury since, guess what, it's brand new! Older housing is inherently more a
by zozbot234 8mo ago
"Luxury housing" is a meaningless qualifier. New housing (market-rate) is always a luxury since, guess what, it's brand new! Older housing is inherently more affordable, so it's not that the new housing sells for less, but that its very availability pushes prices elsewhere down comparatively. That "elsewhere" may even be in a completely different neighborhood if the new market-rate housing acts as an amenity that soaks up demand locally - then neighborhoods that have thereby become worse by comparison will be cheaper.
- shafyy 8mo agoNo that's not true at all. You can absolutely build new housing that's luxury and ask for more than the average market rate. And also in Austin, by "affordable" they mean "income-restricted" units. The quote I copy and passted above continues like this: > A key piece of Austin’s strategy has been to encourage the construction of affordable housing. The city pursued this goal through density bonuses—allowing taller buildings with more units when they include income-restricted units—and bond levies to build more affordable homes. Maybe don't comment as if you know what you are talking about if you are not familiar with the politics and economics of the housing market. Many (most?) cities have a quota of social housing (i.e. housing that's below a certain rate that allow for people with lower income to get a place). That's what meant by affordable housing in this context.
- zozbot234 8mo agoYou don't need to point out that "affordable" is commonly used as a misnomer for income-restricted units, that's common knowledge. But what people care about is actual affordability, which is driven by overall market dynamics. That's what's "meant in this context" if you care about the real issues.