4 ms·

New things do tend to cost more than old things, that's pretty much always the case! Where I live, people are blocking the construction of new apartments becau

New things do tend to cost more than old things, that's pretty much always the case! Where I live, people are blocking the construction of new apartments because the cost of the new ones is a bit higher, 10%-50%, than the average existing apartment. The idea behind blocking the new apartments is that "new expensive apartments don't help anybody" and people get very upset that the new housing is going to the type of person that can afford to pay slightly more for the newer apartment. Rather they would prefer that new housing is only built if it's cheaper than existing housing. So when housing does get blocked, the existing landlords demand the higher new rents that those wealthier people pay, driving up the overall costs on old apartments. The poorer people get displaced, the wealthier people have housing but worse housing, and the only people who are better off are the landlords of the older apartments.

win311fwg 4mo ago
> the type of person that can afford to pay slightly more for the newer apartment. Relying on that is the root problem. I could technically afford the new house, but in the end I couldn't find a good reason to tie up that much capital for something that does the same thing as what I've already got, only shinier. If the price were more reasonable then I'd make the move and then someone else could move into my much cheaper used house. But, as things sit, I occupy the cheap house instead, leaving the next guy out in the cold. Trouble is that just because I can afford it doesn't mean I am willing to be a buyer. The price still has to make sense. I am not alone in this. It has been well reported that people are now staying in their "starter homes" instead of upgrading like past generations used to.
- ghaff 4mo ago
  There is a lot of cost and effort associated with moving into (or building) a new house. Honestly, where I live isn't huge but it's probably a bit more than I need at this point. But, absent a real shift such as buying an urban condo, it makes more sense to just hold onto the paid-off exurban house for the time being.
- epistasis 4mo ago
  And yet, the new "too expensive" housing is 98% occupied, so there are slightly wealthier people who are actually paying to alleviate the housing shortage crisis with their higher rents. Yet the same people lobbying to block the building of these new apartments are still saying that "nobody lives there" because it doesn't fit their mental model of the world.
  - win311fwg 4mo ago
    > And yet, the new "too expensive" housing is 98% occupied Too expensive housing doesn't get build.
    - epistasis 4mo ago
      Well, occasionally a developer does mess up! So it sits empty for a year or two, then prices fall to the true price, and only that individual developer lost out. The city still got its property tax, an empty new building for a year or two is no worse than an empty lot for anybody, etc. etc. etc. But people that claim to hate developers find this sort of situation, a developer that built too expensive housing and ends up eating a loss, much worse than the current state of people being displaced all the time.
selectodude 4mo ago
You gotta look at the motivations. Rich people and activists can both agree that affordable housing requirements are a good thing. The higher the better. This makes the project not pencil out so everybody is happy - the homeowners who don’t want new neighbors and the activists who think that everything is gentrification. The only people who get screwed are the only people who don’t have a vote, the non-residents. Which is why zoning policy and approvals cannot be locally controlled.
- epistasis 4mo ago
  I would argue that the people who get screwed the worst are all the people who can barely afford to pay current rent. They get displaced when rents rise, having to move away from their friends, family, their kids' schools, etc. All because "activists" convinced them that their enemies are the people able to pay slightly more, rather than the system that says "only the X wealthiest people can live here, oh and we won't change X even though it's trivial."
  - selectodude 4mo ago
    I’m always a bit confused how this is so difficult for people to understand. If I want to move into your neighborhood, there are two options - I move into new construction or I move into your house. There is no option C where I decide that because the housing stock is garbage, I decide to go somewhere else.
    - epistasis 4mo ago
      Here's an academic paper on how many people don't understand housing economics, even though they understand the same concepts in other areas: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.20241428 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.20241428 I can't tell you how many times I've been told that "supply and demand doesn't apply to housing," both by super wealthy NIMBY homeowners and by those struggling to get by.
      - win311fwg 4mo ago

win311fwg 4mo ago

> the type of person that can afford to pay slightly more for the newer apartment. Relying on that is the root problem. I could technically afford the new house, but in the end I couldn't find a good reason to tie up that much capital for something that does the same thing as what I've already got, only shinier. If the price were more reasonable then I'd make the move and then someone else could move into my much cheaper used house. But, as things sit, I occupy the cheap house instead, leaving the next guy out in the cold. Trouble is that just because I can afford it doesn't mean I am willing to be a buyer. The price still has to make sense. I am not alone in this. It has been well reported that people are now staying in their "starter homes" instead of upgrading like past generations used to.

ghaff 4mo ago
There is a lot of cost and effort associated with moving into (or building) a new house. Honestly, where I live isn't huge but it's probably a bit more than I need at this point. But, absent a real shift such as buying an urban condo, it makes more sense to just hold onto the paid-off exurban house for the time being.
epistasis 4mo ago
And yet, the new "too expensive" housing is 98% occupied, so there are slightly wealthier people who are actually paying to alleviate the housing shortage crisis with their higher rents. Yet the same people lobbying to block the building of these new apartments are still saying that "nobody lives there" because it doesn't fit their mental model of the world.
- win311fwg 4mo ago
  > And yet, the new "too expensive" housing is 98% occupied Too expensive housing doesn't get build.
  - epistasis 4mo ago
    Well, occasionally a developer does mess up! So it sits empty for a year or two, then prices fall to the true price, and only that individual developer lost out. The city still got its property tax, an empty new building for a year or two is no worse than an empty lot for anybody, etc. etc. etc. But people that claim to hate developers find this sort of situation, a developer that built too expensive housing and ends up eating a loss, much worse than the current state of people being displaced all the time.

selectodude 4mo ago

You gotta look at the motivations. Rich people and activists can both agree that affordable housing requirements are a good thing. The higher the better. This makes the project not pencil out so everybody is happy - the homeowners who don’t want new neighbors and the activists who think that everything is gentrification. The only people who get screwed are the only people who don’t have a vote, the non-residents. Which is why zoning policy and approvals cannot be locally controlled.

epistasis 4mo ago
I would argue that the people who get screwed the worst are all the people who can barely afford to pay current rent. They get displaced when rents rise, having to move away from their friends, family, their kids' schools, etc. All because "activists" convinced them that their enemies are the people able to pay slightly more, rather than the system that says "only the X wealthiest people can live here, oh and we won't change X even though it's trivial."
- selectodude 4mo ago
  I’m always a bit confused how this is so difficult for people to understand. If I want to move into your neighborhood, there are two options - I move into new construction or I move into your house. There is no option C where I decide that because the housing stock is garbage, I decide to go somewhere else.
  - epistasis 4mo ago
    Here's an academic paper on how many people don't understand housing economics, even though they understand the same concepts in other areas: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.20241428 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.20241428 I can't tell you how many times I've been told that "supply and demand doesn't apply to housing," both by super wealthy NIMBY homeowners and by those struggling to get by.
    - win311fwg 4mo ago