5 ms·

Much of the demand increase is domestic: as crime and pollution have decreased in American cities, and the downsides of auto-oriented suburbs have made them una

Much of the demand increase is domestic: as crime and pollution have decreased in American cities, and the downsides of auto-oriented suburbs have made them unappealing to many, there are a lot more Americans looking to move into urban housing, and to stay in it beyond their 20s. New York City is one of the safest big cities, has very high wages, and very slow production of new housing due to a lack of buildable land and zoning that makes it difficult to replace small buildings with larger ones in many areas. These factors lead to very high demand with little new supply to meet it.

lkrubner 13y ago
This does not describe an increase in demand: "as crime and pollution have decreased in American cities, and the downsides of auto-oriented suburbs have made them unappealing to many, there are a lot more Americans looking to move into urban housing" You describe a change in preferences, from one form of housing to another form of housing. All other things being equal, this does not lead to an increase in demand. If 1 person moves from the suburbs to the cities then there is 1 more person demanding urban housing and 1 less person demanding suburban housing. Total demand does not increase in this scenario.
- PilateDeGuerre 13y ago
  Total demand in metropolises has increased. This rise in localized demand has priced out the poor and working classes and has resulted in a rise in overall homelessness. TFA points out that relocation isn't always a rational economic choice for people priced out of these metropolises and that they turn to other measures such as doubling up on housing or spending an imprudent 50%+ of their wages on rents. This places these people in an extremely precarious position financially and increases their chances of homelessness.
- gaadd33 13y ago
  But I don't think people are arguing that total demand has skyrocketed, as I'm sure there are plenty of cheap and affordable houses in places such as Flint and other rust belt cities. The problem is the locations with jobs have seen an increase in demand without an increase in supply and those same locations are the ones that are attractive to foreign investors and immigrants. So you end up with all the demand in a few concentrated areas vs spread equally around the country.
  - lkrubner 13y ago
    You write: "But I don't think people are arguing that total demand has skyrocketed" and yet you can see that I am responding to a comment that starts with these words: "Much of the demand increase is domestic"
    - gaadd33 13y ago
      As you said that total domestic demand hasn't increased as it was just a change in preference, I was implying that no one is arguing that the total demand for housing in the United States has suddenly skyrocketed. The change in preference, as you called it, creates demand in specific areas of the US while creating a surplus in many other areas. I believe the impact of foreign investors has only increased the localized demand however they probably haven't done much to increase the overall demand for housing in the country.
    - akgerber 13y ago
      This article is mostly about the NYC submarket of the metro NYC market. NYC used to contain much of the working-class housing in the NYC metro area, but as demand for NYC housing has increased as urban living has become desirable, a lot of that working-class housing has moved upmarket, while new working-class housing has barely been created. So in the NYC submarket, total demand has definitely increased. Outside of city limits, it is often somewhere between illegal and very difficult to build new multifamily housing.
- akgerber 13y ago
  Urban housing is most of the working-class housing stock in this country, at least within metropolitan areas. Most suburbs have very stringent zoning requiring houses (and even multifamily) to use a lot of land. In areas where land is expensive, this makes new affordable housing illegal.
rm999 13y ago
>very slow production of new housing due to a lack of buildable land and zoning that makes it difficult to replace small buildings with larger ones in many areas This is not true, new housing is actually one of the things NYC has done really well. See this story for more detail: http://www.wnyc.org/story/300641-how-new-york-vertical-city-kept-rising-during-bloomberg/ http://www.wnyc.org/story/300641-how-new-york-vertical-city-... >building boomed during the Bloomberg years, both in terms of sheer numbers and in terms of height ... In fact, the housing supply well outpaced the city's population growth, as it has in the past several decades. The number of housing units increased 5.3 percent between 2000 and 2010, while population rose just 2.1 percent, according to the Furman Center
- akgerber 13y ago
  The number of housing units in NYC increased 5.3% in a time period when US population increased 9.7%: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Stat... New York may be building more than, say, San Francisco, but it's not building enough given a country with increasing population and the growing popularity of city living. New housing units may well be smaller than old ones.
  - rm999 13y ago
    >a time period when US population increased 9.7%: That's a misleading and mostly irrelevant statistic because population growth in the USA is not homogenous. Half the growth from 2000-2010 has been hispanic, a population that tends to live in western and southern states - not the northeast/NYC. This is reflected in geographic maps of population growth: http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/united-states-population-growth-from-2000-to-2010.html http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/united-states-population-growth-.... 10% growth hasn't occured anywhere near NYC; the 2-3% population growth in NYC reflects the geographic area it is in. Anyway, I don't see why national population growth is relevant either way, the important statistic is supply has outpaced demand, which is a hard fact (and is visibly clear - construction is common in many parts of the city, especially the outer boroughs and the east/west sides of Manhattan). Prices are going up because the demographic of the city has changed, not because of supply constraints.

lkrubner 13y ago

This does not describe an increase in demand: "as crime and pollution have decreased in American cities, and the downsides of auto-oriented suburbs have made them unappealing to many, there are a lot more Americans looking to move into urban housing" You describe a change in preferences, from one form of housing to another form of housing. All other things being equal, this does not lead to an increase in demand. If 1 person moves from the suburbs to the cities then there is 1 more person demanding urban housing and 1 less person demanding suburban housing. Total demand does not increase in this scenario.

PilateDeGuerre 13y ago
Total demand in metropolises has increased. This rise in localized demand has priced out the poor and working classes and has resulted in a rise in overall homelessness. TFA points out that relocation isn't always a rational economic choice for people priced out of these metropolises and that they turn to other measures such as doubling up on housing or spending an imprudent 50%+ of their wages on rents. This places these people in an extremely precarious position financially and increases their chances of homelessness.
gaadd33 13y ago
But I don't think people are arguing that total demand has skyrocketed, as I'm sure there are plenty of cheap and affordable houses in places such as Flint and other rust belt cities. The problem is the locations with jobs have seen an increase in demand without an increase in supply and those same locations are the ones that are attractive to foreign investors and immigrants. So you end up with all the demand in a few concentrated areas vs spread equally around the country.
- lkrubner 13y ago
  You write: "But I don't think people are arguing that total demand has skyrocketed" and yet you can see that I am responding to a comment that starts with these words: "Much of the demand increase is domestic"
  - gaadd33 13y ago
    As you said that total domestic demand hasn't increased as it was just a change in preference, I was implying that no one is arguing that the total demand for housing in the United States has suddenly skyrocketed. The change in preference, as you called it, creates demand in specific areas of the US while creating a surplus in many other areas. I believe the impact of foreign investors has only increased the localized demand however they probably haven't done much to increase the overall demand for housing in the country.
  - akgerber 13y ago
    This article is mostly about the NYC submarket of the metro NYC market. NYC used to contain much of the working-class housing in the NYC metro area, but as demand for NYC housing has increased as urban living has become desirable, a lot of that working-class housing has moved upmarket, while new working-class housing has barely been created. So in the NYC submarket, total demand has definitely increased. Outside of city limits, it is often somewhere between illegal and very difficult to build new multifamily housing.
akgerber 13y ago
Urban housing is most of the working-class housing stock in this country, at least within metropolitan areas. Most suburbs have very stringent zoning requiring houses (and even multifamily) to use a lot of land. In areas where land is expensive, this makes new affordable housing illegal.

rm999 13y ago

>very slow production of new housing due to a lack of buildable land and zoning that makes it difficult to replace small buildings with larger ones in many areas This is not true, new housing is actually one of the things NYC has done really well. See this story for more detail: http://www.wnyc.org/story/300641-how-new-york-vertical-city-kept-rising-during-bloomberg/ http://www.wnyc.org/story/300641-how-new-york-vertical-city-... >building boomed during the Bloomberg years, both in terms of sheer numbers and in terms of height ... In fact, the housing supply well outpaced the city's population growth, as it has in the past several decades. The number of housing units increased 5.3 percent between 2000 and 2010, while population rose just 2.1 percent, according to the Furman Center

akgerber 13y ago
The number of housing units in NYC increased 5.3% in a time period when US population increased 9.7%: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Stat... New York may be building more than, say, San Francisco, but it's not building enough given a country with increasing population and the growing popularity of city living. New housing units may well be smaller than old ones.
- rm999 13y ago
  >a time period when US population increased 9.7%: That's a misleading and mostly irrelevant statistic because population growth in the USA is not homogenous. Half the growth from 2000-2010 has been hispanic, a population that tends to live in western and southern states - not the northeast/NYC. This is reflected in geographic maps of population growth: http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/united-states-population-growth-from-2000-to-2010.html http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/united-states-population-growth-.... 10% growth hasn't occured anywhere near NYC; the 2-3% population growth in NYC reflects the geographic area it is in. Anyway, I don't see why national population growth is relevant either way, the important statistic is supply has outpaced demand, which is a hard fact (and is visibly clear - construction is common in many parts of the city, especially the outer boroughs and the east/west sides of Manhattan). Prices are going up because the demographic of the city has changed, not because of supply constraints.