Its wild how the solution to housing costs is really just:
Build more housing. Keep law and order.
No it doesn’t need to be “affordable”. Yes rent control is a terrible idea.
Just build more housing.
Note: that the US already has plenty of housing and housing costs basically go up in areas of low crime relative to economic opportunity. If you build housing, but allow crime to rise, you have wasted everybody’s time.
It’s a difficult problem not because we don’t know the simple solutions (supply and demand). It’s difficult because the people who have the majority vote also typically own the houses and they obviously don’t want the prices to go down. This is not just speaking about the US, many countries are facing this issue
But people who only own 1 house at most are still disadvantaged by this - sure, the value of their apt goes up, but if they want to switch to a larger house, the difference they're paying also increases, so do the property and wealth taxes, if applicable.
There are many stories of solidly low-to-middle class families who lived in an area where property prices soared, and had to choose between bankruptcy or moving out, because they could no longer.
The only people who benefit from this are the investors and landlords. So allowing housing prices to surge is literally taxing the poor for the benefit of the rich.
Buildings also deteroriate - ask a civil engineer. Building something that lasts 50-100 years is much cheaper than something that can be maintained economically indefinitely. If you own a house with copper or PVC plumbing, that they go bad after 40-50 years, and fixing burst pipes quickly gets expensive.
Why do countries allow housing prices to rise then? Simple, it allows banks to have a massive portfolio of loans, where they get a steady source of income for literally decades, while also getting a massive portfolio of real estate they can use as basis for leverage to grant loans (which they profit off of).
Governments can then tax the banks and get some of that money without the dreaded specter of increasing income taxes.
The only problem is that the everyman gets stuck with a 10,25, and now 50 year old loan (with a similar increase in price) for the very same median house.
There are a bunch of successful models, people usually mention Vienna as having a particularly effective housing policy - what they did is the city bought up a bunch of land, and built housing on top of it in various government subsidy programs, from non-profit public benefit corporations, to social housing for the poor.
They have strong renters rights, protections against rent increases, and high standards to which dwellings must conform to.
So while you can be a landlord in Vienna, you have to compete with affordable housing options, and you're forced to maintain a high quality yourself.
So that means that unless you can offer something the market's willing to pay extra for, being a landlord is not particularly lucrative thing.
Notice nowhere in my post did I mention the typical 'landlords are evil and must be taxed to death' approach.
Which is in stark contrast to most places where you're paying through the nose, the standard of rented dwellings is low and your rent can be increased or you can be kicked out on moments notice.
Investment companies own only about 2% of the housing market, and most of these are rented out. Investment companies aren't really the cause of housing prices remaining high - in moderate- and high-demand areas, we simply aren't building enough to keep up with demand.
Investing in housing only makes sense when supply is limited. The way to stop investors from hoarding housing is to make housing a bad investment by building a lot of it so cornering the market is impossible.
The De Beers cartel was able to avoid anti trust scrutiny because the best reserves are outside (Africa/Canada/Russia) of the most lucrative markets (US/Europe/Asia).
Corporations control only a small faction of housing supply.
That's not a different choice. LVT makes it more expensive to hold land that's less productive than it could be, the result of which is that development is encouraged.
I do really enjoy all the arguments coming up in this post that are pretty easily defeated by “build more housing”. No one has been able to come up with a compelling argument about why this doesn’t work.
It can be both affordable and an investment - it cannot (and will not) perpetually be a market-beating top-tier investment.
All of the items above can have drastic unintended consequences; the way to keep prices affordable is to make sure that supply is always outstripping demand by a bit.
Some examples of unintended consequences:
* I can't add an ADU to my existing property which would add one more dwelling unit
* Subdivision of property is discouraged; combining parcels reduces tax even if no new dwelling units are created
* This might be the closest to doing something though it could substantially discourage non-citizen immigrants (legal or not)
* This has been tried before and had well-documented issues, but might be doable if they can provide a "floor"
At least in the US, up until the rise of 'flipping' and AirBnB home values typically tracked with inflation. Personally owned real estate was a hedge against inflation and a tax shelter, not an 'investment'.
By definition if something is affordable, it’s not a good place to store money with the goal of it increasing.
> All of the items above can have drastic unintended consequences.
Yes, absolutely. These are not fully fledged solutions, but a starting point. Some of them may need an asterisk or two.
Of course, unintended consequences are perfectly fine if the final result is better than what we have today
> I can't add an ADU to my existing property which would add one more dwelling unit
Your wife or kid could own it. If you don’t have either of those, you don’t need two homes.
> Subdivision of property is discouraged
Subdivision and sell is perfectly encouraged.
> This might be the closest to doing something though it could substantially discourage non-citizen immigrants (legal or not)
I am a non citizen immigrant in Canada. I just had to bide my time until I became a PR then could buy a house. Perfect.
> This has been tried before and had well-documented issues, but might be doable if they can provide a "floor"
Again, it doesn’t have to be perfect, just better than what we have now.
So like what California did, which resulted in only a couple hundred thousand units over half a decade when they were hoping for/needing a couple million statewide.
Not the mention that ironically, the private owners with the space to build an ADU on their lot are the ones most likely to already be wealthy, and not actually rent it out to anyone below their socioeconomic bracket.
The majority of voters would vote to make income tax zero, that doesn’t mean we should accept that simply because the majority wants it.
In the US the majority of voters just voted for a racist, homophobic pedophile convicted felon.That doesn’t mean everyone should shrug and say “it’s the will of the people”
I refuse to believe you would have this attitude if you and your family had to rent drinking water while people profited wildly from it.
The situation is unacceptable and needs to change, irrelevant of what certain people want.
Sure, I agree, but this isnt a technocracy. If you want the government to change you do need to convince the voters at large.
> The majority of voters would vote to make income tax zero
Im not sure this is true. Most people recognize the taxes are needed for the government to provide services.
> That doesn’t mean everyone should shrug and say “it’s the will of the people”
This is the reality though, it doesnt matter that you or I disagree. Trump is the legitimate president even if he's a racist, homophobic pedophile convicted felon.
That's part of it, but I definitely have known quite a few renters who opposed building more housing. Denial of supply and demand, as well as general dislike of "rich developers" is strong in many groups.
Incentives are typically the strongest force to watch, but so are various cultural/political narratives people come up with. People clearly don't all vote in our own economic interests in many situations. I'd assume this is largely because in the current information ecosystem, people don't understand what's in their economic interests.
This!
>> I'd assume this is largely because in the current information ecosystem, people don't understand what's in their economic interests.
It's wild that even renter's aren't voting for more housing. I think it's because basic economics isn't taught in k-12 or even college anymore and this is causing a lot of problems.
Of course, there are other solutions too, like starting new cities and incentivizing companies to move there in the beginning. People follow jobs, they have to, now more than ever. if companies move there, people will follow. How is that we used to be able to create new cities and yet now, we all the sudden can't. has our material wealth really dropped so low that we can't afford to build new cities?
and what about down-sizing? in hong kong, you could create bed sized units at a fraction of the cost of a full sized apartment. microapartments? etc? all NOT legal. i think it's wrong of the city to decide that for people. individuals should be able to decide whether they want that or not, rather than being forced onto the streets.
Many people are not driven entirely by their economic interests, thus you can see people wearing clothes not from the Walmart bargain bin, driving cars with electric windows, and eating out instead of cooking rice and beans at home. Renters, just like home owners, want to live in the most comfortable home they can afford in general.
People who lament the lack of rentable pods and don't understand why anyone would pay more for a bigger house in a quitter neighborhood or just for a nice view exist, but you are in the minority. Thus renters are not going to vote to live in a ghetto so they could save a few hundred on rent.
> It's wild that even renter's aren't voting for more housing. I think it's because basic economics isn't taught in k-12...
Teaching economics is not the solution (see papers on financial literacy). Rationality is hard and even highly educated people have terrible models of cause and effect. Even your own dependency analysis implies that voting for X helps to get Y (which hasn't been my personal experience).
Do you recall exactly what kind of housing they were opposing? Because that is a major piece of context we are missing here. I don’t think I’ve ever met anybody who simply said “no more housing.” It’s usually much more specific than that, such as opposition to house flipping and STR’s, or wasteful planned communities of McMansions and concrete.
The local subreddit for my area always has tons of negative comments about any new housing development.
Some people complain it is "luxury" or even just normal and not "affordable."
If it is single family housing then people complain about the lack of density. If is apartments or condos they complain that there is already so much traffic in that area and adding thousands of new people will make it even worse.
When small old houses are bought up, torn down, and a new apartment / condo complex goes in they complain about the lack of character and soulless new development that all looks the same.
I have to agree with some of the other comments that many people never learned supply and demand or are completely incapable of understanding a for profit business.
I've seen comments about memory / RAM prices going up. Gamers are now so anti-AI because it is making their GPUs more expensive and now memory, flash, and hard drive storage as well. I've seen comments that say the government should step in and force companies to make GPUs at affordable prices. We can argue over whether health care or clean water are a human right but some people seem to think cheap GPUs are a human right.
Generally these people oppose the building of "luxury housing" because they don't get how ALL housing increases supply/reduces market price. Also the idea of a developer building a kind of... predistressed property has never made any sense to me.
> ALL housing increases supply/reduces market price.
I can tell you firsthand that that is absolutely not true. The massive rush to renovate or build new short-term rentals in the 2010s had a disastrous impact on rental prices around my city, especially coupled with historically low interest rates that made these enterprises far less risky. It’s also incredibly disruptive to neighborhoods/communities, not just because of bad guests but because it can rapidly drive up value, leading landlords to sell and/or rapidly drive up rent which means kick out lower income tenants whether it’s intentional or not. Most of the STR’s in particular were also not being done by locals. 70%+ were out of town developers. Currently almost 90% of STR’s here are whole home which means not local owner/operators living there. It’s just hotels by a different name taking up housing in residential neighborhoods.
When interest rates and home insurance went up a few years ago, coupled with stricter rules for getting an STR license, a lot of people sold their properties (usually rentals/STR’s), and the price to buy as well as rent noticeably came down pretty rapidly. It’s still too high, but the drop was noticeable and quick. The purpose for construction absolutely factors in to these discussions.
Taxing short-term rentals would handily address these issues while still allowing people to derive some income from their otherwise vacant pieds-a-terre and vacation homes.
But that’s the thing, that’s not what these properties are generally here. These are homes bought in cash by developers in neighborhoods occupied by residents. People lived in these homes prior and somebody else would have likely bought and lived in it if they left.
When my wife and I were buying our first house we had two houses taken out from under us because somebody came in with an all cash bid tens of thousands higher than ours. Both are still Airbnb’s.
> These are homes bought in cash by developers in neighborhoods occupied by residents.
This happens because hotel accommodation is generally overpriced. But if you tax the airbnb rentals, it deters profit-minded developers from engaging in this practice, while still allowing it as a last resort for homes that cannot be rented long-term and would otherwise sit empty.
Maybe in theory but that’s not what happened here at the end of the day. That’s the entire issue. This type of construction and renovation is bad for housing. My city’s story is very common - it was especially in the 2010’s.
House-Hotels managed by companies based in other states (sometimes even other countries!) don’t belong in residential neighborhoods. We have zoning for a reason.
> Maybe in theory but that’s not what happened here at the end of the day.
If you mean that levying targeted taxes/fees to mitigate the bad side-effects of STR's has not been tried, I agree of course. I'm not denying that the detrimental side-effects exist.
I think my larger point here is that we can’t say “all construction is good” if we have to have a ton of qualifiers that ignore when it isn’t and/or expect all sorts of parameters and rules that aren’t being implemented. Tons of bad building goes on all the time, and it is reasonable of people to oppose it. Belittling them and accusing them of not understanding basic economics is not fair at all. There are plenty of examples of construction that should be opposed.
An ex of mine mentioned to me that she was going to join a local community group trying to prevent development on an empty lot near her apartment. I asked why she would want to do that? Her concerns, and the concerns of the people she was showing me on facebook, were:
1. "They didn't do an environmental review"
2. She didn't want to hear construction noise.
3. She didn't want the construction to cause rats to leave the lot and go to buildings.
4. She also said she didn't want her rent to go.
Apartment complexes. Mostly "luxury" apartments, but including ones with some % of affordable units. Some were replacing houses, but mostly replacing parking lots, vacant lots, or even older, smaller apartment buildings -- in a neighborhood that was already almost entirely apartment buildings.
Lots of people have kids and want them to be able to a) not be a victim of crime, and b) be able to afford a house. Anyone who has loads of money to afford high house prices and private security can afford luxury beliefs, as espoused in Oscar acceptance speeches, but everyone else with housing and kids is either voting for less crime and better affordability, or is not yet voting for those things.
Plenty of people with kids are voting to block new housing. It's not that they don't want their kids to be able to afford to pay rent. They're just not making the basic connection between supply and demand.
This just happened in my neighborhood. There was a proposal to build low rise apartment buildings about a mile from the detached single home neighborhood where I live, and people had lawn signs opposing the construction. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the loudest and most active anti-development voices were from Trump supporters. Economic illiteracy used to be the domain of the political Left, but the Republicans are making real inroads in rejecting free market principles, so there's some amount of political realignment. Luxury beliefs indeed.
In an area entirely filled to the brim with the "evil" Trump supporters ... new housing is going up, apartments, row homes, single family homes, it's all there.
Nobody really seems to care ... yet.
It's often very instructive to find out who is "behind" both promotion and resistance; because both groups will attempt to find ways to "play both sides" and get opposition moving.
> Economic illiteracy used to be the domain of the political Left
IMO the right is not really the right that most of us remember, so it's not worth trying to reconcile their current ideology with the fiscal conservatives of decades past. The current GOP is unserious, their base consumed by conspiracy theories and driven by grievance.
>They're just not making the basic connection between supply and demand.
They don't like my beds. There's something wrong with them! I can't be the problem! -Procrustes
Yes. It's the people's fault for not understanding markets. Couldn't be that markets are fundamentally structurally fucked by an inversion of the demo pyramid. Couldn't be that market participants are just delusional about how much other actors should have extracted from them.
The tragedy of the commons is a real thing. People focus on their own personal short term economic gain at the expense of long term sustainability and gain - even for themselves - because people in general find that longer term outlook difficult to reason about.
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others we've tried. This short term thinking is one of its classic failures, because in many ways you're codifying the tragedy of the commons.
"typically own the houses and they obviously don’t want the prices to go down."
I've never understood this: If I replace a single home with 20 apartment homes, I've raised the value of the whole property at purchase time no? You're already dealing with home valuations that have faaar outstripped wages, the only way you go any higher is to build more homes on the same property.
Counterintuitively, the "I don't want to live next to apartments" line of thinking actually seems more potent in the regular NIMBY headspace? Like people will forego higher valuations to keep their suburb a suburb.
> I've never understood this: If I replace a single home with 20 apartment homes, I've raised the value of the whole property at purchase time no?
It's a commons problem. In your scenario, you have absolutely increased the value of your property. 20 apartments is more valuable than a single family home. However, you have also reduced aggregate demand by housing 20 people. That reduced the value of your neighbors' properties (or at least reduced the rate at which their value increased).
NIMBYism posits that values will continue to increase without forcing any property owners to invest in improvements so long as they collectively block any efforts to increase supply.
Are there any real examples of this actually happening?
Local to me, Arlington and Reston VA have both seen massive building sprees over the past 20ish years (mostly adjacent to the Metro). Home values have never been higher in either location.
My own personal example... I live ~1 mile from the Metro, so just outside the building boom zone. There was next to zero housing in that zone - it was all office parks - and now it's a mix of $1+ million townhomes, $1+ million luxury high-rise condos, and dining/retail. My own home value is up 50% since COVID and that's true for just about any house in my zip code.
And without the redevelopment/infill, I posit the whole area would be less desirable. NIMBYism feels more about "change is bad" than property values.
Literally the entire peninsula of the bay area is an example of this happening. You have people voting to "keep their small town feel" sandwiched between San Francisco and San Jose.
Ah, well I still think it applies as a counter example. Avoiding density makes values rise, especially when combined with increasing office space density/local job growth.
In general I don't think it requires all that much thought in terms of why/how price changes happen. Housing demand is inelastic, and you can find examples of that causing both rapid price increases (metro areas with high friction building requirements) and rapid price decreases (metros with population declines) when out of equilibrium in either direction, which is exactly what you'd expect of a good with inelastic demand.
Yeah, I live in Falls Church, which has seen more build-up than other areas in Northern Virginia because the city has never had the kind of restrictive zoning that the anti-"Missing Middle" campaign is still fighting in Arlington. The value of my single-family home peaked in 2024 and has dropped slightly since. To my understanding, this is generally true of my zip code and not true of comparable zip codes in the area.
But Falls Church is much nicer now that a few mid-rise apartment buildings with ground-level retail have gone in! As a resident, I am very happy about all the new development. I expect that over time, that will have a positive effect on property values, but there is an observable short- and medium-term effect working in the opposite direction as the increased housing supply eases demand on the existing housing stock.
Do you believe that small drop is a result of new development or just a blip in the market? Price increases near me definitely slowed as interest rates increased, but we haven't yet seen a drop. But, as far as I know, this is one of the only walkable areas outside the Beltway, so there's a lot to like if you want to be untethered from a car for much of the week. It's also a relatively affordable area (vs inside the Beltway and some SFH neighborhoods) - my TH 1500sqft (1800 if you include finished basement space) would currently sell for ~$700k. The new-build THs are 2500sqft, with a garage or two, and sell for just over $1 million.
It's not a common problems in Austin at least. You (a property developer) buy a single home in bad shape on a big lot in the city. Then you redevelop the single home into 20 apartments, greasing the wheel appropriately (of the local government) to get the needed rezoning and permits. No one else can do this because they don't have the connections and monetary resources you do. You pocket the increase in value of that property (minus the cost of grease) by selling it off as "condos" which have dubious maintainability going forward. You never lived here anyways, you have a ranch in Bastrop.
I live next to a sprawling apartment complex after rezoning allowed it to go in.
Now we have a large homeless encampment partially on the apartment complex lot - that the complex can't deal with because their lawyers told them off.
Now we have a significant uptick in petty but quality of life impacting crime.
The roads around the apartment complex are now swamped because the entrances were placed stupidly.
And the people who live in that apartment complex are also upset about all of this.
None of this is about "my investment". It is about not letting commercial outfits hurt my quality of life to subsidize their profit margin. It's not the fault of the tenants, nor me.
Now we get to sue the stupid property management company until they fix their issues.
The thing that is prized above all else is privacy and exclusivity. People are paying money to ensure that few people live near them and that those people are the "right sort of people."
Dating back to the 1930s the original core goal of zoning was to restrict apartments so as to keep poor people and minorities out of certain areas. We know this because it's well documented in the newspapers of the day because back then people were more comfortable explicitly saying how classist and racist they were.
I occasionally wonder if it would be a net positive to make political office terms a little bit longer, but limited to exactly once. No reelection pressure.
Same part of my addled brain that thinks we should increase dramatically our count of representatives, abolish in-person legislating, and then fill the roles with sortition.
Things are so party focused nowadays I don't think the person behind the mask really even matters.
It might slightly help, you'd probably have less votes on giving themselves pay raises, but at the end of the day the majority of ads and voters are going to revolve around party lines.
“Show me the incentive and i’ll show you the outcome”
I’ve learned a long time ago that we’re not always aware of how incentives drive our own behavior, it just happens naturally. This is exactly what’s happening with housing.
that's true, but plenty if people oppose building new apartments because, in general, the price will be high and they see this high prices and incorrectly conclude rents are rising when in reality, people move in, freeing up the less expensive places they were in before.
similarly they oppose because "gentrification" even though the evidence is that gentrification is net positive, even for those already living in the area. gentrification or not, people leave at the same rate. Those who stay see their income/wealth rise compared to the case of no-gentrification.
That’s why California has had dozens of state laws passed in the past 3 years that override many city and county ordinances to force additional supply. Lawmakers knew the only solution was more housing.
These bills permit the construction of denser housing near transit, force cities to actually meet housing quotas, allow the state to override a city’s zoning to permit more housing if they don’t make a good faith attempt, loosen the rules to build ADUs, and many other changes.
Is it ideal that we had to get to this point? No, but housing wasn’t being built.
I'm confused by this objection, if you draw a stereotypical supply and demand curve, you can see how prices settle to an equilibrium point. Of course reality has more complications, but I think your objection is 95% answered by a supply and demand curve. You keep building houses when it is profitable. You stop when it is not. This naturally keeps everything in balance.
Free markets for housing are likely to settle into an "optimum" where some percentage of people cannot afford housing at all, because while construction/rental of housing for them would net a return, it's not worth the opportunity cost. Plus you should not wait for the market to respond to a lack of housing: people will be homeless in the meantime. Supply/demand is mostly reactive, because building for anticipated future demand years down the line is very risky, so most investors don't like that.
Markets don't optimize for "everyone gets some", yet that's precisely what you need for housing. You'll always need the government to come in at some point to provide for those left behind by the free market.
The thing about arguments like this is they're usually used in service of blocking housing. As in we shouldn't do what Austin did because it won't fully solve the problem. We should instead stick with the status quo, which gets much worse than Austin.
Isn’t the initial response to a lack of housing that people consume less housing than they would like, rather than homelessness, eg families with children sharing rooms more than they might like, adults living with roommates, or just people having to live further away from where they would like to be (or moving out of a city altogether)?
I don’t dispute that there are levels of affordability that are bad enough that they start to lead to various forms of homelessness, but it doesn’t seem to me like a fundamental rule that, if some people can’t afford to live alone in a large amount of housing, they also can’t afford to live with roommates sharing a smaller amount of housing, and that the right level of housing prices should also price some people out of those arrangements (ie it demands a pretty high level of inequality if you assume that the market allows typical people to afford to live alone and that sharing can typically reduce per-person rents by half or more)
Individual landlords also dislike those and may not allow it, because the ability of the household to make rent now depends on all adults in that household. 3-4 broke adults who may only loosely know each other and with their own individual plans are a lot less stable than, for example, married couples. It's basically 3x the risk and hassle. Chances are you'd have to evict them after just a couple months.
They'd rather just leave the apartment empty and hope to find a better tenant.
Is that not typically happening only for more egregious situations? E.g. the ban is on more than 3 or 4 unrelated adults living together. There are plausible reasons why that should be regulated, it is not clearly a conspiracy by homeowners to prop up the value of their own homes.
> Free markets for housing are likely to settle into an "optimum" where some percentage of people cannot afford housing at all, because while construction/rental of housing for them would net a return, it's not worth the opportunity cost
You provide no basis for the idea that the returns on housing have to drop below the point at which its financially viable to build before housing becomes affordable. You just say "because" then restate your premise.
> Markets don't optimize for "everyone gets some", yet that's precisely what you need for housing.
Just because markets don't optimize for it, doesn't mean it doesn't achieve it.
> You'll always need the government to come in at some point to provide for those left behind by the free market.
"Not worth the opportunity cost" is not the same as "not financially viable". It means that there are lower risk/higher return investment opportunities than creating that housing. More simply stated "Why would I want to turn my $100 into $110 +/- 20% if I could turn them into $130 +/- 20% instead?"
"I lost a foot" is not the same as "diabetes caused me to need my left leg amputated below the knee", but if you're talking about whether or not you can make it to the store a few blocks away without assistance the distinction isn't really important.
The trick is to acknowledge the market as the main mechanism at play, and have the sense to work around the margins. When the tinkerers get too enthusiastic, they tend to do more harm than good.
I have struggled to understand why houses don't get built and land sits idle for years. I can only assume that it's significantly more complicated. I'm not trying to excuse the complications. I guess if the house prices are forecast to go up, you build some houses, but not all that you can because the longer you wait, the higher the profit will be on the ones you start later. If house prices are going down, even if it's profitable when you start, you're not likely to build houses because you might be left holding houses that will sell at a lower margin. If there was a tax on unused land, that might skew things towards building more even if prices are declining, but I'm sure there are lots of views on that.
In Texas, at least, the lack of income tax is made up for in property taxes. Just owning that plot with nothing on it is still going to be a sizable liability.
Sitting on it is a predictable cost, while building means a costly chaos which may or may not turn out the wished profitability. So when you are used to "old profits" you maybe rather wait on the predicted do-nothing-cost, and hope for the tide to turn again in your direction.
Guys you have no idea about these things and what you are talking about. source: I am a city plot owner.
No land owner will suddenly become a developer to build an apartment block.
A plot owner can sell land to a developer or form a joint venture with developer putting in their land as starting capital (much more risky) most people either keep land as gold or sell it when they need money.
I hope it is clearer now.
The very idea that everyone who owns land should build an apartment block is laughable, it is very complicated endeavour best not to get into it if you know nothing about it. Hell building a single family house is complex, let alone five story building.
So you either keep it if you don’t need money or you sell it if you want to buy something else or need to have liquidity. And you don’t even sell it to buy other investment vehicle because land is already better than gold.
My plot increased 3 times in price in 10 years. Try to beat that with SP500. It’s virtually immune to inflation no matter how the broader economy fares it will always shield from inflation because you cannot make more land hah.
Even in utopia of automation and post scarcity society good location land will be truly lucrative and unimaginably expensive if not outright prohibited to own by private individuals. The question is what will be a “good location” in 30 years.
> My plot increased 3 times in price in 10 years. Try to beat that with SP500. It’s virtually immune to inflation no matter how the broader economy fares it will always shield from inflation because you cannot make more land hah.
> No land owner will suddenly become a developer to build an apartment block.
No one is suggesting this.
> A plot owner can sell land to a developer or form a joint venture with developer putting in their land as starting capital (much more risky) most people either keep land as gold or sell it when they need money.
Most people don't own vacant lots, but some who do hold onto it as an investment. It's a pretty poor one on average over time, just like gold (which is a good analogy).
> The very idea that everyone who owns land should build an apartment block is laughable, it is very complicated endeavour best not to get into it if you know nothing about it. Hell building a single family house is complex, let alone five story building.
Again, no one is suggesting this. The assumption is that a developer would buy a lot to build on, because that's what happens in practice.
> So you either keep it if you don’t need money or you sell it if you want to buy something else or need to have liquidity. And you don’t even sell it to buy other investment vehicle because land is already better than gold.
Land and gold are not better than the stock market over time.
> My plot increased 3 times in price in 10 years. Try to beat that with SP500. It’s virtually immune to inflation no matter how the broader economy fares it will always shield from inflation because you cannot make more land hah.
The S&P 500 beats real estate over time. Congratulations on getting lucky with your plot of land. Land is a good inflation hedge, assuming you are in a growing area. Ask rust belt land owners how things worked out for them.
> Even in utopia of automation and post scarcity society good location land will be truly lucrative and unimaginably expensive if not outright prohibited to own by private individuals. The question is what will be a “good location” in 30 years.
Thanks for highlighting one of the many issues with communism, but we will never reach a post-scarcity society for many reasons, including this one.
You know what increased more than 3x in the last 10 years? The S&P 500 index (it went from $203.87 at the start of 2016 to $681.92 at the start of 2026). And your plot of land is a massive outlier to the upside in the US overall during that time.
Historically, undeveloped land basically tracks inflation. Obviously, there are specific plots of land that dramatically exceed that, and there are specific plots of land that don't keep up with inflation.
That's the only thing you got right: raw land is an inflation hedge.
> Even in utopia of automation and post scarcity society good location land will be truly lucrative and unimaginably expensive if not outright prohibited to own by private individuals.
Indeed, there’s a reason you see silicon valley execs going all in all acquiring land to build fortresses. At the end of the day, regardless of the cold march of technological progress, land remains the root of all real power.
If a minority has most of the wealth then the equilibrium supply may include a lot of supply of second homes, very large homes on large plots for the rich, properties sold at a premium based on how much they can extract from renters, and even investment properties occupied by nobody whilst still having insufficient small basic homes and dense housing.
Capital that could be invested in better serving the bottom half has to compete not only with the use of those resources to further enrich the rich but other investment opportunities.
There is more than enough land for everyone, and rich people aren't really competing for the kind of housing that poor people are competing for, e.g. smaller plots with smaller homes. The demand of the rich does not eliminate demand of the poor, so the market produces different kinds of housing for different clientele.
Think about it this way: assume you supply all the housing to all the rich people. Then there still remains untapped demand of others that can be fulfilled by further production of homes for those specific people.
This story fails when land becomes restricted, which is exactly what zoning laws cause. Zoning is a big harm to the poor.
> rich people aren't really competing for the kind of housing that poor people are competing for, e.g. smaller plots with smaller homes.
This disregards basic geometry. Sure, in some rare situations you only have one small plot of land surrounded by existing construction or natural boundaries. But, in the majority of cases, you have one large plot of land, and you can either construct one big house on it, 5 smaller houses, 10 small houses, or 200 apartments in a block. The rich are absolutely competing for this lot with the poor.
And as inequality goes up, the rich can even start contemplating buying up surrounding properties, tearing down construction, and transforming a small plot into a much larger one.
Given the choice between being homeless and living in favelas, millions in Brazil have chosen to live in favelas.
The reality of zoning laws in Western countries is to provide a target for regulatory capture by the NIMBY crowd. With the result that we're systemically underbuilding housing, then wonder why we wound up with homelessness.
Favelas are a local optimum which systemically is very difficult to get out of and is a sign that the regulator is powerless. It's a great example of a market failure.
There's a couple of "ifs" there and the scenario seems implausible. If I look at the prime real estate in a city it tends to be a lot of skyscrapers rather than very large homes (with occasional exceptions like say a Buckingham Palace). But it looks like the economic equilibrium is lots of cheaper apartments rather than large homes for rich people.
> ... and even investment properties occupied by nobody ...
Not much of an investment. Something is wrong if that is happening, probably manifesting as a lack of supply. Otherwise what is the point of an "asset" that doesn't generate income, degrades over time and could easily be rented out at a profit rather than sitting unused?
Whatever scenario there is where it makes sense to have an empty property, assuming a sane policy backdrop, it'd always be better for the owner do what they were going to do anyway but also rent it out.
People don't want to rent those homes out because once you're doing so it's difficult to evict a long-term tenant. You just lose out a lot on flexibility - even if you try and manage that risk by leasing out housing e.g. on a yearly basis, landlord-tenant law often overrides that since there are strong ethical reasons for not evicting someone who has since come to treat that rental space as their home.
Short term rentals are better on that score: no one sensible forms a long-term expectation that they're going to live in an Airbnb that they've rented for a few days. (If you think short-term rentals are "bad" for the long-term market or have negative side-effects on the neighborhood, then tax them to manage that tradeoff. But banning them altogether is unconscionable and just leads to houses sitting empty and unused.)
The purpose of housing is not to provide an investment vehicle nor should we optimize for this. Airbnb should just regulated out of existence in most urban markets because we are chronically low on housing and the city doesn't need short term rentals at all.
The purpose of most real estate is to provide shelter for people, not to sit empty and unused. That's exactly what AirBnb allows to those who are only willing to rent short term (because it's their vacation home and they want to be able to use it).
Housing someone provides a fundamentally different kind of value than offering a second home or short-term stay. A home meets an essential social need, while vacation homes and similar uses provide far less public benefit. On that scale, the social value of housing a person is vastly greater than the value of adding another short-term rental bed.
That does not mean hotels would stop being built, because developers and hotel operators are optimizing for a different kind of value. But it is more than enough reason to oppose turning even a single home into a de facto short-term hotel.
The reality is not simply that people are monetizing unused space. The ability to rent homes short term encourages people to buy more second homes than they otherwise would, because the income offsets the cost. It also encourages investment in housing that would otherwise remain in the long-term market, since owners know unused time can be monetized. Some buyers purchase properties specifically to operate them as Airbnbs, and many landlords convert homes that once served monthly or yearly tenants into short-term rentals because they can charge more, adjust rates freely, and often earn more overall.
You are referring to properties held by the already rich (only the rich can afford 'vacation homes').
If they can't afford a 'vacation home' without short term rentals then it should be sold and provide housing year-round and build equity for a new homeowner.
There are some places in the UK (mostly new developments in London) that have a significant number of deliberately empty investment properties despite the law here making it easy to evict tenants. They are not being used for short term rentals either.
Although the easiest route (no-fault eviction) is being abolished soon, wanting to sell a property remains a valid reason to evict.
Some people just buy property as a speculative investment.
I do not think it is the main cause of shortages in London - that is people buying holiday homes, which are often large and centrally located. London provides a lot (restaurants, nightclubs, gambling, prostitution, financial services...) that attracts people with a lot of money to spend from all over the world.
> despite the law here making it easy to evict tenants
"Easy" is relative. "Evicting" an airbnb'er once the term is up will always be orders of magnitude easier than kicking out a long-term tenant who regards that as their actual home. There's not even anything necessarily wrong with this! The easiest way to address the issue is literally to slash any remaining red-tape that's making things difficult for those who would want to AirBnb these properties out, while managing the resulting side-effects (including the plausible effect on the long-term rentals market) by levying a special fee if necessary.
As a bonus, easy AirBnb rental provides an alternative for some who might otherwise want a permanent holiday home.
If we don't have an excess of housing why should we allow ANYONE even one single property to serve as an unlicensed hotel. If we tax un-lived in property extremely punitively nobody will hold them at all and it should soon be sold or rented out.
I'm fine with taxing both long-term vacant properties and AirBnb at fairly high rates, since both have negative effects on the surrounding neighborhood - the latter to a markedly less extent than the former, of course.
If you want second homes to be used productively, just allow folks to list them on AirBnb for planned short-term rental. Long-term rentals are a total non-starter politically for second homes, since you obviously can't ethically throw out someone who regards that rental space as their home. But short-term is actually fine.
As for larger homes, people should be allowed to live in there as larger, extended family groups - a common pattern in non-Anglo cultures. Ban "single family" restrictions since they amount to unconscionable discrimination against such reasonable living arrangements.
Some would say that housing is a right (while acknowledging the need for housing construction and its workers and supplies to be paid for) and that it should be funded somehow, even if the free marker profit becomes negative during certain periods. Like any market manipulation, the question then would be how to intervene to keep housing construction going when construction isn't profitable, while not fomenting corruption in the industry.
Housing where? Is housing for me in Malibu a human right? There's plenty of places to live in Texas for basically nothing.
I'm honestly trying to take this seriously, but I really can't square the problem of location and utility. On of the reasons why West Virginia has such a low homeless rate is just that mobile homes and manufactured housing is pretty much legal in many areas around the state. One of the reasons why California is so expensive is that those types of inexpensive housing options are effectively illegal statewide.
Yeah seriously... when I was dirt poor and hurting, I moved to Shreveport and was able to get by on minimum wage. There's plenty of places in the Deep South where one may live a decent life for moderate wages. Not everyone gets to live the life of Riley.
> There's plenty of places to live in Texas for basically nothing.
What are the employment options there? If I move to a cheap house somewhere where there are no jobs for me, I just moved somewhere where I cant afford.
As someone who has lived here for a long while, it seems like there are lots of jobs in a lot of industries here. We're not all oil riggers and cowboys.
Again, I'm not trying to be difficult here, but "where" is "somewhere." There are jobs in Austin, San Antonio, Kerrville, Marfa, and El Paso. They might not all be for me, but they exist in all these places. Where you live and what your commute is, again, is not exactly something that's particularly trivial to define. At what point should I start looking in San Antonio rather than Austin?
These are hard questions. This is what I mean when I ask whether I have a right to housing in Malibu? At what point should I be expected to just move to East LA?
At the end of the day, housing in Austin is relatively inexpensive. There are real options below $300K. Living in SF, it's pretty astounding that that's even possible within the city limits, much less at reasonable commuting distances.
I certainly think incentivizing subsidized low income housing is worthwhile, and I think even incentivizing builders to just target the low income price points is also worthwhile. I just think that focusing on subsidizing the lowest income folks, rather than letting markets actually work for most people has been shown to trivially fail in CA where I live at actually accomplishing anything. A lot of "ugly" 5-over-1's have been built in Austin, and it's working to keep the place affordable for working class people. I'm absolutely fine with that.
> At the end of the day, housing in Austin is relatively inexpensive. There are real options below $300K.
This is so insanely out of touch. Most people will never be able to afford a house over $200k, even in Austin. I live here, you apparently live in California. As a resident, let me tell you that Austin is not affordable, and definitely not "inexpensive". Housing here is relatively inexpensive compared to the most expensive metros in the world, it's not relatively inexpensive compared to the US housing market, or more relevantly, the Texas housing market. This isn't the Bay Area, it's the middle of Texas.
> A lot of "ugly" 5-over-1's have been built in Austin, and it's working to keep the place affordable for working class people.
Austin isn't affordable for working class people and it hasn't been for a long time, so no, those new constructions aren't keeping it affordable, they've just stopped the insane rent increases that were coming every year for more than a decade. A living wage in Austin for a single person is $100,000, for a family it's $200,000, and that is well above the median household income of ~$90,000. Working class people are well below the median and aren't making $90,000 per year. These numbers are from an article in our local newspaper from this week. [0]
I literally grew up in Austin. I understand the Austin housing market. I understand is not cheap. That doesn’t mean it’s not affordable.
According to your article:
> Based on those costs, MIT estimates the living wage for a family of four in the Austin metro area is $112,866 a year, or $49,322 for an individual.
That’s well below median household income.
> The organization created a “Household Survival Budget,” which includes housing, child care, food, transportation, health care, technology, taxes and miscellaneous expenses. According to the group’s estimates, the living wage for a family of four in Travis County is $102,096 with two kids in child care and $85,356 with no kids in child care. For a single adult, the survival budget is $39,924.
Again. When we are talking about the housing crisis in the Bay Area, we are talking about small condos costing $1M. Just forget having anything be closer to median income affordable for a family of four. In Austin that’s still possible. It’s not Milwaukee, but it’s a functioning housing market.
Elderly retirees seldom move. They’ve long paid off their mortgage and we keep property taxes extremely low so they are pretty much immune to the cost of housing. Once you put down roots in a community it’s hard to leave.
They also usually don't want to leave their established doctors. This is actually one of the reasons why we need mixed-housing options within neighborhoods so that elderly people can downsize into more manageable one and two bedroom apartments, condos, or duplexes etc without having to leave the neighborhood. Downsize into housing stock without stairs, without a large yard to upkeep, downsize into something smaller that would be more affordable to adapt for someone aging in place.
... but your own housing isn't any form of basic human right, its a luxury all around the world and always has been. Now I completely understand folks who come out of uni and see the salaries (sans faangs and generally devs and few other lucky positions), the prices and the emotions of missing out come easily.
But it isn't a right, just because you would like it. Same as I don't have a right to a car at price I would like, just because I live, by my choice, in rural environment close to nature. I desperately need one though for work commute, shopping, taking kids to school etc so thats as non-optional as accommodation to existence of my family. I can either suck up car's actual prices, move whole family so I don't need it or do similar choices in life to tackle that.
But car ain't a right. Same as your own accommodation, of course not a modest small apartment but a house, ideally close to work, amenities, schools, and costing peanuts. Literally what everyone else wants. Or am I incorrect in your expectations? Because if yes, its easy to accept cheap remote small old properties, those aren't expensive for above-average earners at all, anywhere.
Positive rights and negative rights. Societies can and often do guarantee rights that place an obligation on society and others to fulfill. In the US, we have a right to emergency medical care regardless of ability to pay. We have a right to a fair trial and representation. In NYC, the city is obligated to provide shelter for the homeless. Some thing that should be more universal. Not all questions can be answered by me right now.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25.1:
> Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and
well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing
and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security
in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or
other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
What happens if everyone takes this declaration at face value and decides to be unemployed? Who pays for all the services that every person is entitled to?
Then your point is meaningless. I (GP) was also pointing out the same equilibrium mechanic. The specific point I was making is that all evidence points to the equilibrium (in the US and elsewhere) being at a point that does not make housing easily attainable, and so becomes a political liability.
"Go build homes [beyond equilibrium]" is not a solution
Which isn’t quite accurate as for example people prefer to move out of their parent’s homes while young adults but aren’t necessarily homeless if they don’t.
Basic housing is a necessity, but people also huge homes and 2nd homes etc. So housing policy should therefore be more complicated than simply subsidizing anything you can call housing. Capping the home mortgage tax deduction at ~median home prices for example is probably a better use of government funds.
That is the object of the sentence. He is asking who the subject is, in other words the thing or person that is doing the housing of the people. Is it the government? Is it you? I'm currently responsible for housing myself, which is annoying so I would prefer someone else take on this responsibility.
Not sure I buy the premise. Austin has a household $133k median income with a $435k median home price. It’s very affordable.
But, to make Austin more affordable still, you make it less expensive to build so that it’s profitable to build. Typical regulations that do this are:
- Lower minimum sizing requirements
- open zoning
- raise height limits
- make sure you don’t have unwarranted restricted fire codes (some places have elevator stairwell requirements that are insane)
- make permitting easier or not required at all for some cases
- no min parking requirements
Pretty sure as good as Austin is, they could easily reduce the costs by up to 30% (there are parts of the country with 50% the cost per sq ft for new construction).
That means there’s an invisible hand keeping prices up, or basically that the market is not free enough. That’s caused most of the time due to excessive regulation.
Another reason is high demand in locations where offer is limited due to physical limitations. There’s always demand to live in Broadway, and offer can never catch up due to its physical limitations.
We are not talking about economic theory. We are talking about house prices. Time after time it has been seen that free-enough market can lower the prices to affordable levels.
The relative abundance of land compared to other factors of production is, in fact, such a proposition. But when land is restricted through zoning laws this stops holding true. In other words, we must eliminate restrictions on production for the benefit of all people, but particularly the poorest.
We don't need economic theory for that it's just common sense. Humanity has been erecting structures to live in for approximately our entire existence. The modern economy is mechanized. How could a wood frame structure or a small high rise possibly be unaffordable if the market is functional?
Stop and think for a second. Someone in good health with a willingness to DIY and a sufficiently flexible schedule can literally build their own house from the ground up. It's a substantial time investment but not actually as much as you might think. Housing isn't very resource intensive compared to the rest of the modern economy.
The only possibilities I can imagine to explain unaffordable housing are broken regulations, critical levels of resource exhaustion, natural or man made disaster, and gross economic dysfunction.
It's regulations. But before you call them broken, some of it is safety. Safety standards keep rising with technology and the economy as people can afford more. Same with cars. There's also zoning restrictions in some places designed to prevent slums by requiring large residences. I guess that's happening here too.
Also living standards, ancients houses are dead simple and today could probably be built with usd 5k-10k in a couple months. But most people wont accept a home with no electrity, no lights, no AC, no indoor plumming, etc.
The average person would need a MASSIVE investment in time to learn all the skills required in addition to investment in tools. Furthermore people won't lend joe random the funds required in the same fashion as they would for an actual finished house OR constructing a house via a contractor.
The invisible Hand may be monetary policy. The median household may simply no longer be able to afford the median home due to the continued wealth distribution shift brought on by interest rate targeting.
> That means there’s an invisible hand keeping prices up
Construction labor is quite expensive and so are the raw materials (and going up). Means there is a hard lower bound on cost and unfortunately it's not that cheap even if they built at zero profit (which nobody will).
> That means there’s an invisible hand keeping prices up, or basically that the market is not free enough. That’s caused most of the time due to excessive regulation.
No. Why do you guys fall so easily for the "regulation" cliche?
The answer is far easier: unwillingness to invest.
Why are there investment funds willing to burn through tens of millions in stupid stuff like NFTs or pets.com, but investing $10m on a 5 story apartment building that can get you a solid RoI of 20% is frowned upon?
Why the investment funds have to build the houses? Houses has been built/funded from zero by the future owners since forever, either individually or through cooperatives. That way, "investors" don't need a positive ROI, and they happily lose money overall if they get a home.
I know some people that are currently "willing to invest" in buying a ship container or two and transform it into a house to get costs down. The problem? Regulations don't allow them to put the container in their own property.
Using a shipping container is almost always a stupid plan compared to just putting up some wood. As much as I want to make zoning more flexible, I'm not in a rush to change that particular regulation.
Sounds arrogant to block someone else plan to have a home, just because you don't like it. And then claim regulations are not the problem, but lack of willing to invest.
If you think containers are a bad idea, don't buy one.
The demand for containers is rare and they don't really save money over building small out of reasonable materials. That specific regulation isn't blocking anyone from having a home.
The invisible hand is zoning. There's plenty of investment available but you literally aren't allowed to build what would be useful in most cases.
Sure you're free to go out into the middle of nowhere and build all sorts of wild stuff but there's no market for that because that isn't actually what anyone wants. You can't blame the investors when what people actually want to pay for has effectively been outlawed.
OP used the term incorrectly. The term was used by Smith to refer to the fact that in the market, order occurs by the alignment of incentives of different people without any central planner.
In reality, those ideas do not apply to the housing market, esp. as there is no real competition; and because the demand is absolutely inelastic (if we are already applying in MBA-wording universe)
Also, that this is true you can see if you compare to housing markets which "are more free than the Australian"
- inelastic means the demand is more or less independet of the price; you can't "just stop renting & living" if prices are going up, your options to bypass are highly limited -> therefore its called >inelastic<
Where does this happen, in presence of a reasonably free market?
I can only think of extremely land-limited places like Monaco and Gibraltar. Where the answer is "not everybody should live in Gibraltar".
But the US has a lot of land. So much land that it can afford wasting it on endless sprawl of single family homes, which is the least efficient way of providing housing. Most Asian megacities would not be able to exist if they had as strict zoning principles as the US has.
Maybe you should also think about barriers such as "bans on boarding houses". This is what messes with poor people the most. A room in a house full of rowdy individuals sucks, but it is still a room. Possibly you may spend just a year there, then find something better. A tent in an encampment of rowdy individuals is strictly worse on all accounts except cost, and bouncing back from that is harder.
there are many things you can do, but essentially you want to make it profitable for builders to make houses at a lower price point, or give the average person more money. Some approaches (not all of which I'm endorsing):
- reduce restrictions around planning / construction / etc (because it takes time and expertise to comply, both of which cost money)
- find a way to bring in cheaper labor, or make it possible for construction companies to hire the same labor at a lower price. Maybe a subsidy, maybe reduced taxes, maybe relaxed labor laws
- add a subsidy for homes
- make your citizens more wealthy, so the price is no longer above their means
- outsource construction to a place that can build it more cheaply (eg, prefab homes)
> - find a way to bring in cheaper labor, or make it possible for construction companies to hire the same labor at a lower price. Maybe a subsidy, maybe reduced taxes, maybe relaxed labor laws
It's far easier than that: just have your regional/local government finance urban renewal projects that increase occupation density. You can even tie the project to the expansion of a public transportation system.
Won't the market fill the gap? For example, in Indonesia, "standard size" houses are mostly out of reach for new buyers (young generations), so they build houses farther away and/or smaller.
Why would you produce more bread, milk, eggs as prices fall? You would of course wait for the next-pig cycle - when the starving masses pay any price to you.
The answer- essentials can never be a non-government interferring market. This can be by creating artifical oversupply by buying up oversupply for foreign aid or bio fuels(food production).
In the case of housing, this is by having the goverment continually construct housing.
The government intervention in the markets for agricultural products is because farmers are often an important political base, not to keep prices low for consumers. Without the intervention, prices would fall and supply would have to fall too, which would be good for consumers and bad for producers.
I'd argue that government intervenes in agriculture for supply-chain safety first and foremost.
Governments are concerned with this because no meat (or rice) on supermarket shelves during a supply-shock of any kind leads to rapid unplanned regimechange very consistently.
So basically every western government throws a few billions a year at local farmers so they stay (and this is not a US phenomenon, EU does the exact same thing). This is also less necessary for countries where labor is cheap.
This is arguably good for most consumers because essential calories being more affordable "on average" is not good enough, you'd typically rather pay (partially indirectly) a higher average to guarantee availability and avoid starving.
One of the main housing issues is government interference. People want to do things to get money from other people, including building houses for them to buy.
You're probably being downvoted because you're just assuming everybody knows what you mean. For somebody who doesn't it's going to be a nonsensical statement. The issue is that the government mandated banks enable easier access to loans for housing, as a means of resolving prior housing issues.
But what happens when you suddenly start giving a bunch of people the ability to go arbitrarily far into debt to buy something that they perceive as priceless (because housing, and most any other 'thing' tends to endlessly appreciate in value in an inflationary economic system)? Obviously prices skyrocket. The exact same thing happened with education for the exact same reason.
The difference is between buying and asset and producing an asset. Even if RAM costs are falling, it can still be profitable to produce more RAM, as long as the costs are far enough below the eventual sales price.
It's entirely different if you're buying the housing already built; there's no productive activity, you're just a rentier and do not benefit at all from falling housing prices.
The differences in interests between an asset holder and a productive builder are night and day.
> it can still be profitable to produce more RAM, as long as the costs are far enough below the eventual sales price.
Right... my point is that the costs are not far below the eventual sales price. That's why construction is slowing down.
And as mentioned several other times, it's actually not as simple as cost > sale price. It's margin > margin of alternative investments of similar scale and risk profile.
As someone who is not versed in real estate, I don't see why your comment and parent couldn't both be true. Is Dr Horton building homes in Austin? Are the margins in Austin pulling down their average margin? That could explain high profit while dissuading new construction in Austin.
*I don't know the answers to either of these questions, but of you do, that could provide some "proof" for either side of the argument, depending on what the answers are.
> That could explain high profit while dissuading new construction in Austin.
Given they're still building a ton in Austin, there doesn't seem to be a dissuasion for building there. I do not have any idea about their average margin in the Austin market versus other markets though, but if that was a major decider on whether to build or not the answer is they're still choosing to build.
You can look at new housing starts to see there is indeed a dissuasion to building there. That's literally the very first observation in this thread: construction rates are already falling significantly.
If housing starts in Austin drop 15% for 2026, as some places are estimating, that puts Austin from 32,294 to 27,453 new homes added. It changes its national rank in this dataset from #6 to...#6.
Your claim is that falling prices aren’t leading to less development.
That is both logically and empirically false.
The observation is simply that supply chases demand. As demand is satisfied, prices go down and supply creation slows down or even stops. It’s befuddling that you’re acting like this doesn’t apply here.
Trying to compare competitiveness of various markets on where builders are going to invest their money building?
> It's margin > margin of alternative investments of similar scale and risk profile.
Homebuilders want to build homes. They'll build where its profitable for them to build. Lots of markets are facing downturns in new construction, but home builders are still choosing markets like Austin more than tons of other markets.
> Your claim is that falling prices aren’t leading to less development.
I never said such a thing, although I do think you're potentially thinking in too black and white on it. In fact, I think it was quite clear I was talking about comparing the Austin homebuilding market to other markets with my statement "Austin market versus other markets though".
> As demand is satisfied, prices go down and supply creation slows down or even stops
I think we're still far from demand actually being satiated in the Austin area. Its still the 6th most growing metro in the US, even with housing construction dropping an estimated 15% for 2026.
If builders were really heavily dissuaded from building in Austin, if margins were really that terrible compared to the rest of the country, why would it be the 6th largest spot of housing growth in the US? Shouldn't all those builders decide to invest elsewhere?
I agree, margins are probably less than they were or were projected to be compared to just a few years ago. And I agree that's probably one of the biggest drivers of new construction cooling a bit. But the questions I was answering were:
Is Dr Horton building homes in Austin?
Are the margins in Austin pulling down their average margin?
The answer to the first is obvious and easy. The answer to the second is more complicated, but if it was truly dragging down their average margin in any significant way wouldn't they have just stopped and invested in building in the higher margin areas?
It was not clear that it was your point at all! Yes of course, gotta get your return on capital invested or the money goes elsewhere, probably into a REIT that invests in the existing assets and drives up prices even further. Because the demand for housing goes somewhere: either existing owners profit or the people building and alleviating the shortage profit.
Every single municipality in the US I'm familiar with has done everything they can to make it expensive to build and try to remove any profit margin from building. Which leads to capital moving towards piggybacking on the rentierism of the average homeowner, the people who control the policies that make it unaffordable to build.
Not all new houses sell. Some become shadow inventory, some take 5+ years to sell. If you drive around new developments you can measure the fraction.
IIRC, Mountain House (near Tracy, CA) in the 2008-2010 crash was an example of a large new development that did not initially sell and was in serious danger of going zombie, and not having the new schools that had been promised to people moving in.
There is a difference but not in the way you think. Producing an asset is just buying other assets and labor. The difference with buying an asset is that a part of the assets you bought for production is illiquid for a term of the production. Generally you can only sell unfinished construction at a huge discount during most of the stages. So producing an asset is as same as buying an asset but with a lockout period, when you cannot sell.
Or land ends up better value left as suburban house than developing up.
Or they build where sale cost - build cost is maximized. I.e. different city.
Governments need to build more housing. Make it bland so snobs can price discrimnate themselves to buy builders' homes. Why thrifts by the government home for value for money (and quality).
You think the government knows better how to identify land that is profitable than private builders? Why? Or is this one of those opinions based on "is OK for the state to pay for it because there's infinite money for my pet project"?
UK public housing is widely known for being shit. Unsafe, puts all the poor people together in a block. There's bunch of crime, and your kids will be likely to stay stuck there or go to jail due to bad influences.
Social housing should be sprinkled around it has been found. So nice example of what I was saying.
I would rather have more housing than less though. Government can build it at scale without worrying about profit.
And privately built appartment blocks are awful. One cracked in Sydney had to be evacuated. Concrete cancer and water ingress issues. It is concrete enshittification.
The Grenfell tower fire was caused by a renovation intended to improve thermal insulation.
The renovation project used an external thermal insulation system that failed to meet both the manufacturer's recommendation and building regulation requirements. The particular system was actually banned in the UK while it was installed.
Tell me why you believe this has anything to do with public housing.
Because government has a unique pricing advantage, they get additional value from the houses they build in the form of all the positive externalities and property tax revenue. So projects that wouldn't be profitable for private builders might still be worth it to the government. So it should be both.
They're just gonna pay builders a sum anyway so it's not like they need to shoulder the full upfront cost anyway.
Do you have example of another area the government has higher profit margins than private industry? I can't. And if I was going to think a government would build housing, it would be in places that are cheap and I could mass house a bunch of people, not in hip expensive cities which is what people want when they talk about this.
But surely soviet style huge blocks of tiny t0 apartments all stuck together is a dream...
> Do you have example of another area the government has higher profit margins than private industry?
Public transit. Capturing enough money from fares is difficult, maybe impossible, but it's quite profitable if you can capture the value generated by the enabled economic activity and raised property values.
The same really goes for most infrastructure. There's a reason the government operates nearly all the roads. Also the fire departments and police stations
Yes and that reason is not because they are better at doing it profitably it's because they are commons that are wildly unprofitable to do well. If you let private industry build roads you'd have nice roads in cities and dirt in the rest of the country.
In this case what people want is the reverse. They want the government to build in Austin.
The government should be involved when market forces won't solve an issue, ie no market will make it profitable to send an ambulance to a town 3h away in the mountains. You don't need affordable housing in the center of Austin just because it's trendy though.
Isn't the US example: Medicare/Medicaid? It has far less costs (i.e. more of the money spend ends up with patient care) and has a reasonably good reputation?
This is a government literally putting their money in private companies instead of using it themselves (for idk schools or infrastructure for their people instead of giving it to nvidia and tesla). It's the most literal illustration of "private" beats "public" investment. Not sure what point you tried to make.
It's not necessarily prices falling here but the profitability of [demand] at [price]. Like if prices fall 10% but demand rises 20%, you would want to build more housing.
This is the beauty of the free market because it guarantees three things:
[1] Real estate is generally a good investment and will hold value or appreciate in the long term, because supply will adjust to demand shocks to rescue values
[2] If people want to live somewhere, houses will be built for them to live there
[3] Real estate developers and construction are solid, safe businesses with great unit economics because building may decrease prices, but may still increase demand
It's when you constrain and restrict a market that players have to adjust and then you get crazy scenarios
If you live in a magical fairy world where supply and demand are fixed, sure. In the real world, prices going down 10% leads to a surge in demand, and so you can fill more of your units. This leads to either equal or increased revenue, for the same construction (flat cost), which actually yields higher margins. This is why developers are usually concerned with occupancy rates, and prices are more a concern for homeowners.
There are only really 3 scenarios where prices are low and demand is low:
[1] There is a dramatic surplus of supply, in which case if a developer is trying to build they've not done research and probably should not get financing
[2] There is some other factor (usually high crime) in which case again, developer should do their research, and the market is operating fine
[3] You are developing super early and operating within incentives offered by the city, usually tax abatements, which drive down the carrying cost and make it a better investment.
Also important to note that in scenario [3] a smart developer will slowly release inventory to restrict supply to meet demand, and as demand grows, release more inventory at the newly raised price, continuing to do so as long as the tax abatements advantage the strategy. This is common in successfully developed areas e.g. Jersey City, and is fine as long as broad scale collusion doesn't occur
> Grocery stores have very small margins, as little as 1%.
Looking at the Kroger 2024 Annual report shows that they have 22.3% gross margin . they pay dividends, had a stock buy back, etc so its entirely possible that they had a very low margin but gross margin seems to be similar to a home builder.
The net margin of around 1.5% seems more relevant: the gross margin is just the revenue minus the cost of good sold plus cost of transportation. The net margin is the money you have left after paying things like Rent, employee wages, electricity, taxes, interest on debt.
Grocery stores don't require millions to billions of dollars of capital to execute each new transaction.
So it's not the margin itself but actually the spread between the margin and what investors could get by investing in alternatives. Real estate investment opportunities are often measured by their advantage (measured in fractions of a percentage, .2% advantage being considered solid) over 10 Year Treasuries or S&P 500 returns.
Real estate developers do often actually lose money, but the more salient boundary condition is whether they can get financing for a project, where they have to clear a bar well above the "just make >$0" bar.
> Grocery stores don't require millions to billions of dollars of capital to execute each new transaction.
Neither do homebuilders, because homes don't cost millions to billions to build (high end custom homes can cost millions, but that's not what we're talking about here).
> So it's not the margin itself but actually the spread between the margin and what investors could get by investing in alternatives. Real estate investment opportunities are often measured by their advantage (measured in fractions of a percentage, .2% advantage being considered solid) over 10 Year Treasuries or S&P 500 returns.
Okay? So they have an advantage over alternatives, which means higher profits. And a .2% advantage is not considered solid, or meaningful in any way without a lot of missing context.
> Real estate developers do often actually lose money, but the more salient boundary condition is whether they can get financing for a project, where they have to clear a bar well above the "just make >$0" bar.
Many companies often lose money, due to incompetence or bad luck. The industry as a whole has very healthy margins.
Even a small (~10 home) development, of which we need hundreds of thousands, will require millions in financing. And as the development gets smaller and requires less financing, the economics get a bit worse due to ~fixed cost of land acquisition, development, and infrastructure/utilities.
> Many companies often lose money, due to incompetence or bad luck
One of those signs of incompetence or bad luck is building a bunch of new supply into a market with falling prices, in which case you will find yourself not among those with healthy margins ;)
> [1] Real estate is generally a good investment and will hold value or appreciate in the long term, because supply will adjust to demand shocks to rescue values
Real estate is NOT supposed to be a good "investment" and only became so because the government started propping it up with bank bankstops, zoning, NIMBY, redlining, etc. If your pricing is working correctly, real-estate should be close to zero-sum.
Austin, in particular, had several nasty bust cycles where real estate prices tanked after overbuilding which is precisely what kept the cost of living under control. Alas, that is a thing of the past after 2008 when everybody realized that the federal government will backstop the banks "Real estate number must always go up! Brrrrr!"
For nearly every homebuyer, a home is the largest purchase they will ever make and the bulk of their net worth. It needs to be a good long term investment that at least reasonably paces with inflation, otherwise you are losing money by buying a home and everyone has to rent and then you have feudalism with extra steps.
The good news is this is totally fine with keeping cost of living under control and overbuilding, because prices will go back up over time. Most people aren't going to own their home until the 30 year mark so it really is a much, much longer term investment than anything like overbuilding or other factors can reasonably affect.
The problem is really that people started seeing 2x-10x returns on homes and started treating that like the norm. That is not a 'good investment' that is a 'money printer,' and in most cases the government does not want to safeguard that behavior, but it's hard not to when those same people panic like crazy if their home only goes up 2% in value in a year or, god forbid, decreases in value for a year.
There is really no good solution to that mentality, if there really was one then Wall Street would have uncovered it ages ago to get more people into long term ETFs.
> a home is the largest purchase they will ever make and the bulk of their net worth
That's bad and a central part of the problem.
I accept that my car is depreciating in value every year I own it, and but I need a car so I buy one. I don't need it to be a good long term investment, despite it being a major purchase.
The entire mindset of treating a family's home as being an investment class rival to bonds and equities is a relatively new phenomenon, and one that's clearly been detrimental to many.
> > a home is the largest purchase they will ever make and the bulk of their net worth
> That's bad and a central part of the problem.
Why? Or to ask in a different way, how could it not be?
For nearly all regular working people, there is nothing they will ever buy that costs more in labor and materials than a home. So of course it will be the most expensive purchase most people ever make. How could it not be?
No, it needs to be roughly zero sum but only over very long timescales. Anything else is a disaster.
If housing is a "good investment", it attracts rampant speculation and concentration of ownership to the capital class. You need regular wipeouts to force the speculators out of the market (doubly so if they are buying on leverage).
If housing is a "bad investment", people abandon the real estate and you get blight which becomes a self-perpetuating cycle downward.
Things need to be kept balanced in housing so that people can use it to be a place to live. We are currently in the middle of seeing the dysfunction that happens when being "shelter" is overshadowed by being an "investment".
It seems to me that the market will select for urban sprawl though which is a negative for society but has the highest margin. E.g. Houston suburbs, miles and miles of cheap to fab single family homes that turn it into a suburban hell scape where you have to drive everywhere.
I don't think the free market is giving the promises you say it is - supply isn't elastic for real estate if nobody's building because there's no margins. Demand can be anywhere really.
I like to look to Tokyo for an example. Small lots, extremely predictable regulations (that are still strict enough to ensure a safe living situation), fast approvals, mean it's much faster and easier to throw up an 8-10 story apartment than say downtown Austin, and so even today they keep doing it despite land in Tokyo being very expensive. And, no sprawl.
They can throw up 8-10 story apartments in Tokyo despite land being very expensive because they tear them down and rebuild them after 20-30 years. Also, Tokyo outside of a few areas isn't that tall, it is definitely dense, but 3-4 story tall building dense (those homes are also torn down and built anew ever 20-30 years, so construction buzzes in Tokyo).
It would be better if you considered new actual living capacity in Tokyo rather than just new constructions.
I believe the market in the US selects for urban sprawl because it's usually subsidized by the dense urban core. Suburban areas often don't generate enough tax revenue to support their own infrastructure and services.
I've lived in Tokyo and Houston. Tokyo is infinitely more livable and the housing is still relatively affordable. In Houston even if you can get a new place it'll be clapboard garbage that's a one and a half hour drive from work.
Average home price in Tokyo is 1.5x that of Houston. Average wage in Houston is 1.5x that of Tokyo. So the data doesn't support your post unless you really really love sushi and arcades.
There is the possibility that the government builds housing, since the government doesn't have to care about direct profits and can include the overall economic effects of affordable housing in its calculations. We don't expect much direct profits from roads either, but we keep building more and more of them.
Yeah, there's no positive benefit to making sure people have housing. That's why every day when I walk home from work, I have to think really hard about if I'm going to go home today, or just hang out under the overpass and panhandle.
To be sure, are you asking if society does better when its people are homed vs. homeless? Because that seems like a question with an obviously-yes answer.
I'm not sure "externality" means what you think it means.
Society being better off in many ways (more productive society, happier society, less crime-ridden society) is an example of multiple positive externalities resulting from its people being homed vs. homeless.
I was saying in general, privately or government built housing, not that government in particular should be making housing. I meant that housing market seems to be highly anticapitalist in many ways valuing the opposite of what a good should be.
Because "cheap" government housing has never been "high quality" in the history of the world. Those two properties are antithetical.
Humans don't have a ton of preferences for the electricity they consume or the water they drink, just that it exists. It's a commodity, so a good task for government. Housing is not an undifferentiated commodity and is subject to extreme variances in preference. Markets do differentiation and preference matching infinitely better.
Hence why Government housing always takes the form of a utilitarian blight on the community with giant towers of tiny apartments with tiny windows...doesn't matter if its communist Russia or the richest capitalist city on earth (NYC), all government housing results in the same outcome.
Assuming someone will chime in with some "halo" government housing project in the nordics that represents like 0.01% of the government stock there but socialists will use as propaganda. However, it's important to remember these are not cherry picked examples, they are median examples:
France has similar issues as the US housing projects from the 70s (creating ghettos), these are not places that people choose to live. And yes, all governments put up halo projects that you see in the press that do not represent the average, please link me to them claiming I'm wrong, and I will say yes, this halo project designed by a famous architecture firm does look nice! Now show me the median late-1970s constructed French public apartment.
Singapore is different because they eliminated the "cheap" part. Singaporean HDB flats are expensive, have extremely long wait times (you're stuck for life when one comes up), while still being super tiny. Fertility rates are 0.87 there (replacement rate is 2.1). The domestic population is literally disappearing itself. I'm sure highly regulated tiny housing stock and development policy has no influence on family size though...
The floor space and the proximity to neighbors are perfectly valid reasons to not prefer apartments. Calling them a "blight" is bs, unless you had in mind as your ideal something like historic parts of London because rows of identical mansions in a suburb looks to me no different than rows of vertically stacked apartment blocks. They are both clean, geometric and "industrial" looks.
Not just government made housing but any housing. Housing market needs don't seem to have as much wide fragmentation as eg most of the Western world seems quite happy with suburb style housing and most asia seems content with apartment though aspiring to owning houses.
I am saying just like any other capitalist endeavour, where things that barely existed or were quite expensive many years ago eventually reached a point where both the price became so low and quality so good that it became a mindlesss thing eg sawblades. And housing for whatever reason has been an extremely anticapitalist market. Even if we take the exact same houses people want today, their execution seems far from optimized. Think of something like precutting all the timber and sheets at a factory and doing some light adjustment and fitting on site, developing new materials that are cheaper or easier to work with tools, etc there are countless angles of attack.
In optics for example, it was mostly this rather bespoke work by a few artisans and people back then might have said this needs a fine touch that can't be done on mass scale. And then Carl Zeiss emerged. I feel housing is in the pre Carl Zeiss era.
EDIT: Neither example looks bad to me. The russian looks denser but both look clean and well organized. It doesn't at all look like blight to me, any more than a grid of houses in a suburb does. It's clean and geometric just like rows of houses in suburbs. If you like one but have a problem with another, I think you are trying to get offended deliberately.
Because they don’t care about profits, they always end up overpaying and taking way longer time than necessary.
And who pays for that? The whole society: Either the government raises taxes, gets more in debt, or they print more money driving inflation up.
The most basic commodity, food, is a great example. The moment the government has ever step into controlling production of food, we’ve only seen subpar performance and starving people as a consequence. Ultimately killing millions (USRR, China, Korea…)
> The moment the government has ever step into controlling production of food, we’ve only seen subpar performance and starving people as a consequence.
You might be surprised to hear how heavily government directed and subsidized food production is in the USA.
That is a good idea that requires careful attention to make sure it has near-perfect execution. Because we do that, and they are called 'the projects'.
I’ve seen some housing projects around my city that are actually quite nice. They didn’t end up being shabby because they were built poorly. They were shabby because they were reserved for the very poor and, consequently, became extreme concentrations of poverty and crime. This makes people unwilling to invest in maintenance and continued improvement of their homes.
If the government just went on a building binge of housing to be sold at market rate, or even set an upper bound before qualifying to buy them at a middle class income, it’d work out fine. That’s basically how Singapore does it only they couple it with somewhat aggressive policies to encourage people to downsize their living situations once they’re empty nesting to free up family dwellings for people with families. We probably wouldn’t need to do that second part since we’re not a claustrophobic island, and could just count on natural turnover.
Sure if that's all you care about, it will do that. At the price of making people's lives miserable due to substandard housing if it's done wrong. I said it's a good idea, let's just make sure we do it right.
> At the price of making people's lives miserable due to substandard housing if it's done wrong.
I'm curious to see how Austin will do in the near future by that same metric. More people can afford a place that will let them pay rent, although now at least some of those people will be living in someone else's basement or garage. These may not be very nice places to live, but they may be all some people can afford.
They've also removed the regulation requiring a second way out of a burning 5 story building. Austin faces an increasing number of red flag warnings and has the 5th highest wildfire risk in the US. It remains to be seen what removing that second exit route will cost in the charred corpses of families.
Austin is also cutting corners on permitting which is great news if that was all needless red tape that can be rushed or skipped without cost, but if new apartments built today are (or soon become) deathtraps due to lax code enforcement that could be a major problem down the road.
Austin has already lowered rents which is great, but hopefully it was also done right and it doesn't result in more people being forced into substandard housing or increased deaths. As long as it doesn't, other cities should look into trying some of the same things Austin has done.
The Center for Building in North America has been aggressively pushing for these single stairwell reforms all over the country. Stephen Smith, writer of that report, is the founder of that group as well as the founder of Quantierra a real estate tech company.
The real estate industry is in huge support of this particular reform, and they stand to massively profit from it, but the people who are strongly against it include The International Association of Fire Fighters, the National Association of State Fire Marshals, The International Association of Fire Chiefs, and The National Fallen Firefighters Foundation. These are the people who are most informed about the dangers and risks involved and in what safety measures are required to save lives and fight building fires effectively.
The report itself does make some very good arguments like how much safer modern construction has become, and also some rather weak ones (for example it ignores the poor quality of data on fire and smoke related fatalities in the US, as well as important differences between the US and Europe) and I'm not even saying that single stairwell buildings can't ever be made safely, but if safety really wasn't a problem we wouldn't see a lack of support from firefighters who are the actual experts in this space. Until they are convinced of the safety of these reforms real estate developers are going to have a hard time convincing me.
There are multiple city and state housing facilities in my area that are perfectly fine. They are not huge or luxurious but they're safe, clean, and well maintained.
When the options ar homelessness or subsidized housing, subsidized housing is absolutely the best option, which is backed up by decades of data.
"When the options ar homelessness or subsidized housing, subsidized housing is absolutely the best option, which is backed up by decades of data."
Not quite. That's only true if you are housing people who ended up homeless due to bankruptcy or similar reasons (lost jobs, medical issues, etc). If you have people who are homeless due to sever addiction, you just end up with more OD deaths. You have similar issues with people with sever mental illness.
The homeless are not a monolith and different parts of the population need different solution unless you really really don't give a f*ck about them.
Not really? "The projects" are a consequence of a very specific approach to government housing construction.
There's an alternative approach which mirrors the public healthcare concept of "public option". Instead of restricting government housing to means tested individuals or specific low income populations, you develop a public competitor to drive prices down and to eat costs in regions where housing is needed but the economics just don't make sense yet.
i.e. the US Postal Service model. It works extraordinarily well as long as you don't repeatedly capture and handicap the org/agency (like has been done to the USPS). And even with the USPS despite being severely handicapped it still provides immense value by driving prices down while maintaining the essential service of last mile delivery.
A similar approach could be envisioned for a public construction agency.
Any program created by the US government can be captured and handicapped, like has been done to the USPS.
Also, the Postmaster General was on Capitol Hill today saying how this time next year the service won’t be able to afford delivering to all addresses in the US.
> Any program created by the US government can be captured and handicapped, like has been done to the USPS.
Agreed but even despite that they generally are a net positive.
> Also, the Postmaster General was on Capitol Hill today saying how this time next year the service won’t be able to afford delivering to all addresses in the US.
The same postmaster general who is a longstanding board member at FedEx.
And the US Post was still an extremely effective agency for well over 150 years, only truly beginning to become shackled when Nixon transformed it into the USPS in the 70s, and even then it retained most of its efficacy until the 2000s and 2010s when it truly began to fall onto its last legs.
But also despite being shackled the way it currently is, it's not exactly nontrivial to reform it provided there was any political momentum towards doing so. So it may get its legs back in the days following this administration.
It matters whether the margin is higher than other investment opportunities of similar scale and risk profile.
Already, the answer is very often no. In Austin, the answer will increasingly be no. That means people will not finance new construction, so if demand continues to grow it will outstrip supply and prices will go back up until the margin on new construction exceeds that of alternative investment opportunities of similar scale and risk profile.
I would expect the development of Austin to continue until market equilibrium and then pause. Decreasing margin does not mean equilibrium.
Obviously austin is not at equilibrium because we still have price data on developer activity and that would be near zero if developers couldn’t make returns given risk etc.
The problem here is that the market obviously does not have perfect information, limited mechanisms to coordinate, and significant lead time. It seems pretty much baked in at this point that many of the projects currently underway will complete into a negative market and (assuming Austin remains somewhat desirable) a whole lot of developers will be wiped out. This will stop development until prices rise again, probably back to a level where housing is quite expensive again relative to local wages.
Yes really, that deeper understanding is exactly what is meant when somebody says "the cost to build is lower than the price." If we're going to be pedantic, you're ignoring the huge amounts of uncertainty on costs that are inherent to any project, the amount of risk versus the expected profit.
And indeed that amount of uncertainty: will I be allowed to build eventually? How long will I have to pay interests on assets before I'm allowed to build? Can I actually build what's specified in code or will discretionary processes arbitrarily change what I'm allowed to do, 18 months into the project?
> Yes really, that deeper understanding is exactly what is meant when somebody says "the cost to build is lower than the price.
It demonstrably is not what people understand it to mean to "the cost to build is lower than the price." The cost to build can be well below the sale price and development still be a totally uninvestable activity.
Your explanation of fluctuations in supply and demand are not very revelatory. Everything being in flux at all times is kind of an elementary fact of life.
It's clearly not elementary if people here believe that you can just keep building until prices collapse, and people will still keep building.
The question is whether the market achieves equilibrium at a point where 1) developers can get financing to build profitably, and 2) units can be sold at a broadly attainable price to the local market.
The answer appears to be no because the cost of inputs is so high. No one here is talking about directly reducing the cost of inputs. They believe that instead developers will just continue to build units that they sell at a loss, or at least investors will continue to invest in construction that returns less than the S&P 500 or 10 Year Treasuries (they won't).
it doesn't matter if prices are falling or rising, it only matters how the ROI of building compares to other investment opportunities
we can also make it cheaper to build. easing taxes on imported materials, bringing in more skilled labor, expediting permits, and even direct subsidies like tax breaks
> it doesn't matter if prices are falling or rising, it only matters how the ROI of building compares to other investment opportunities
Correct, which it basically doesn't in Austin, which is why construction is decelerating.
> we can also make it cheaper to build
Yep, this is the only structural solution. The "just add supply" runs into the problem of price equilibriums. The reality is the input costs of building housing basically guarantees that housing is hard-to-attain for any local market. We need to address the cost of inputs. Temporary reductions in price are temporary and the market will self-correct back to restrict supply (as we're seeing in Austin) until prices go back up to being hard-to-attain.
No, the problem is that the free market in advanced economies appears to dictate a price point for housing that is unattainable for broad swaths of society.
Classic case of Baumol's disease, which is not solved by "well duh we just gotta build more." People will not "just build" enough to solve the problem because they won't "just build" beyond equilibrium (for long).
No, the problem is the government has artificially restricted housing supply and this has driven up prices. It's not a market failure, it's a government failure.
I think it's not helpful to talk of "government failure" as long as democratic principles are upheld.
You could call it "voter failure" instead. But I'd argue that many of those voters are just acting in their own best interest, because they already own a home and more construction/housing supply does not help them at all.
Some part you might be able to blame on the system, because I'm pretty confident that owners of at least one home are politically overrepresented literally everywhere (just look at home ownership percentages of politicians compared to citizens).
I personally think a lot of this is just the natural consequence of an aging population, where young-people-concerns are basically "underrepresented" by design.
Of course it's helpful, unless one has the ridiculous idea that democracies can't make mistakes.
Yes, voters are acting in their own interests, or at least what they perceive to be their interests at the time. This can lead to bad outcomes. It's why we have things like the Bill of Rights, which restricts what even a majority can impose.
The idea that voters are always right would also seem to eliminate the possibility of arguing for change. Voters are responsible for current policy therefore it must be right, so how could change be good?
> The idea that voters are always right would also seem to eliminate the possibility of arguing for change. Voters are responsible for current policy therefore it must be right, so how could change be good?
I'd argue the exact opposite. If voters are wrong, and cause bad outcomes, why would you blame "the government", when it's clearly voters being stupid? And I'm not arguing for "no change"-- the fix is to vote better next time. I think it is only fair to directly blame "the government" in a democracy if it either acts against its voters, or is otherwise incompetent, hypocritical or corrupt.
I'd argue that the largest "problems" government causes with housing are institutionalized NIMBYism and more generally policies to prop up housing values.
This happens (mostly) because (many) voters want it.
To fix this, we need more votes from people that suffer most (i.e. young voters, which notoriously don't) and more awareness/priority/empathy from all voters (ideally even the ones not directly affected).
I strongly dislike blanket blaming "the government" for issues like this, because I feel it kinda disenfranchises people.
I'd argue that any policy problem that wouldn't be solved via re-election is never really a "government problem", it's a "people problem" (voters being stupid) or an "incentives" problem ("vote cost" being compensated indirectly by political donations, media attention or similar).
The point is that housing would be cheaper, not that it would become dirt cheap.
There are some inherent costs to new housing. Work of professionals involved, cost of materials, compliance with all technical regulations, some profit for the developer, connection to infrastructure. Let us mark this unavoidable cost by C. It is a component of the current prices.
Then there is the component N, which is deadweight cost caused by zoning and non-technical regulations. I am not saying that it should be 0, but it is in our interest that it is kept in check, maybe 20 per cent of C. As of now, in some places, it well may be 120 per cent of C, even though it is really hard to calculate.
This component of the final price directly enriches no one, it is pure friction caused by special interests of various parties that don't want to see any new housing either near them, or anywhere (landlord cartels that hate competition - indirect enrichment).
Even C is now a formidable figure. Modern homes are basically industrial robots, they are much more complicated from the inside than they were 100 years ago. But there isn't really a reason why they should be horribly expensive.
If as a regular office person you can buy a home for, say, 5x your annual income, it is not unaffordable. That is well, just normal. Not completely everyone is expected to own their home.
The problem is that nowadays, the multiplier in many places isn't 5x, but 10x or 12x. That is just way too much. And given that C cannot be easily massively reduced (unless some sort of massive robotization of construction work happens), you really need to attack N.
This is an empirical claim. It looks like new monthly permits are down from ~4k a month in 2021-2022 to ~3k a month. They're still up significantly from before 2020. The building boom has slowed but it's still elevated. Not particularly close to zeroing out.
Not to mention, Austin could just make it cheaper to build to offset lower sell prices. Gruber et al estimate permits are 50% of an LA home's price. Fix permitting and rent goes down 50% by your assumptions that developers build until margins are 0.
Assume austin is only half as bad as LA, a 25% rent decrease would be incredible
> Gruber et al estimate permits are 50% of an LA home's price
That is not what Gruber shows. The 50% figure is that there's a permit adds a 50% premium on the value of raw land. In other words, the permit cost is "only" 33% of the cost of the permitted raw land. That's significant and a big problem, but very very far from "50% of on LA home's price."
But yeah structurally the solution is indeed to reduce the cost of production. Which if your 50% figure was correct, would be huge. But it's not correct.
Building codes also push prices higher. In the EU, the recent regulations force developers to build luxury buildings as a baseline, at a high cost.
Not all buildings require elevators, intelligent thermostats, triple-panel windows or electric car plugs. Especially when you are experiencing a housing crisis.
Of its still profitable to do so, considering opportunity costs for the capital, firms will continue to build. However, it's so expensive to build that these project wind up not becoming bankable very quickly. I think that's the underlying issue that needs to be addressed.
The problem is the cost of inputs. Classic Baumol's disease. We cannot escape Baumol's disease by just saying "hurrr durr just gotta get people to finance projects into a market with falling prices!"
What do you think homebuilders do? Just close up shop when the market dips?
The answer is there are companies in the business of building homes. If there is profit to be made, they will keep building. Most of the issues we have today are caused by extreme and dysfunctional regulatory regimes that destroy the return on investment by extending the process out. More time sitting on the property before building = lower investment return, and other investments end up making more sense.
> What do you think homebuilders do? Just close up shop when the market dips?
Uhh yes. Downward price pressure is a business-destroying event in real estate development. The amount of risk developers take on with each project is pretty incredible actually.
> Why would you build more cars as prices fall?
For one, there are advantages to scale. That is hardly true (and in many cases the opposite is true -- diseconomies of scale) in real estate development.
> The answer is there are companies in the business of building homes. If there is profit to be made,
No. The question is whether there is more profit to be made from building homes than from investing e.g. in the S&P500 or US 10yr Treasuries. Otherwise investors don't finance new home construction. We are already in an environment where real estate financing is simply not a great option compared to other ways to invest money, and so construction will slow as prices go down (which is, as stated, already happening in ATX).
The prices may be falling, but if you can still make more profit (per unit time) building in Austin than elsewhere (due to less red tape or more local builders or whatever), building will occur.
No, it's absolutely possible that building as a whole is not a good use of capital. There is not some fixed quantity of people-who-must-build and dollars-that-must-be-spent-building.
If the incentive disappears, the people and dollars disappear. And they have to clear a much higher bar than merely being profitable. Because it's a capex heavy industry, development must compete against other ways to invest capital (like S&P 500 or the US 10-Year).
> The problem is: why would you build more housing as prices fall?
Profitability is not black-and-white. Real estate investments can still be profitable if prices fall.
There are different types of real estate markets too. Working class homes in suburbs are not the same market as upper middle class apartments in an urban center.
A very interesting type of investment is high-density housing in catchment areas of new public transportation hubs. Those tend to be so profitable that they can even finance the investment in the public transportation service.
In my state, or in my capital city, you say this, but the real estate developers are generally the top 1% in town. If they're running on razor-thin margins, I'm not seeing it - I am seeing them on my Facebook (being friends with the wife of the mayor) doing things like taking their kids on vacation to the French Riviera, Switzerland, Tokyo, the Maldives... well, alongside the City's Planning Committee commisioners and their families...
Highly restrictive development rules, often sold as ways to stick it to those very rich developers, are precisely what make them so rich. Only those with huge amounts of capital to spend can make it through the gauntlet of the rules and have big enough asset portfolios to stay in the game. They can bank land for decades, speculating on the best time to take their profits, all while others live through shortages of housing and do not have access to that land.
Those very processes that make it hard to develop keep out the scrappy up-start competition, the contractors that could be building houses all over if they had enough lawyers/planners/specialists to help them get through the system.
Look, for example, at LA, which has super super restrictive rules on what can be developed where, and has huge amounts of discretion at the political level, so that NIMBYs can block what they want. The only people who can build housing are developers who bribe the politicians (there was a somewhat recent arrest in LA on this, involving literal bags of cash, by the FBI).
Having simple, straightforward rules that are completely objective is the only way to try to flatten out the playing field. However such rules get shot down by NIMBYs precisely because they don't want the shady developers profiting off apartments! It's all highly ironic.
Corruption isn't prevented by regulations; its enabled by regulations. That's the flaw in your thinking. If a market's only players are really rich, there are 2 possible reasons for that: 1) the market is really good and more players should be entering or 2) the market is highly regulated which prevents more players. Guess which happens a lot more than the other in RE development?
PS Most of the people who build houses aren't very rich, just the CEO/big boss who owns the entire company is. The other 99.9% of people are middle class/blue collar.
> just the CEO/big boss who owns the entire company is. The other 99.9% of people are middle class/blue collar
Yup. I did some IT integration work for a man who owned a local construction company and was very effectively vertically integrating it. In addition to their other work he'd buy land, personally, his company would build at cost prices, and his office staff first informally and then more formally became property managers.
Thats how supply demand works right? Its a stable equilibrium. When supply is low, prices rises to entice supply, supply increases to match demand, prices fall, the rate of increase of supply falls as well until supply approaches to meet demand. It prevents oversupply. If supply slips below demand again prices will rise to pull it back up
Theres no problem here. Thats how the system should work
To some degree yes. However, the problem I'm pointing to is that the equilibrium in several developed economies (esp US) seems to be at a level that makes housing unattainable for a huge number of people.
I.e. Probably due to Baumol's disease, there is no price at which it is both 1) profitable to invest in constructing new housing and 2) makes housing broadly attainable to people.
This is a problem. There are a lot of goods (like a platinum-bodied iPhone) that cannot achieve both (1) and (2). However, unlike all of these other goods, housing is a necessity with an extremely high floor on demand.
Yes, the prices of inputs are very high and rising. Mainly land and labor, but materials aren't cheap either. Housing is also one of the few thing we need at massive scale but which has diseconomies of scale. The more you develop an area, the more expensive it gets to develop it further.
> How can real estate have zero margin when housing rises exponentially in price?
Well let's think about it...
It would suggest that costs are going up, correct?
What are the main costs? Land: Goes up alongside housing prices. Labor: Also goes up alongside housing prices.
Unlike cars, there are very few economies of scale in real estate development. In fact, due to the dynamic above, there are actually diseconomies of scale in housing development. The more you develop an area, the more expensive it gets to continue development.
We normally don't scale goods that have diseconomies of scale because, like we see in housing, they become unaffordable and cease to exist. Unfortunately, housing is a necessity, and so we must build it against increasingly disfavorable economics.
Same is true of healthcare and education. Other goods/services that have diseconomies of scale simply don't scale. That is not an option for housing, education, and healthcare.
This is how markets balance. When there is under supply prices go up and incentivize production. When there is oversupply production goes down. Prices converge on a small premium to the price of production.
Correct, and the argument being made here is that the convergence point on "small premium to price of production" actually sits at "unattainable for an increasing proportion of Americans."
Similar to how the convergence point on price for a platinum-bodied iPhone converges at "unattainable for enough people to support its production" and it therefore doesn't exist.
The difference being, obviously, that society can hum along just fine without platinum-bodied iPhones and it cannot hum along without housing.
Maybe other real estate savvy people can help me understand this plus two other things I'm confused about in the housing crisis:
1. Houses are unaffordable for many Americans. To get houses to prices where they'd be affordable again would require a housing prices drop that would likely be, market-wide, significantly low enough to put a ton of people underwater on their mortgages. What is society/the government meant to do about that? Is it an insurmountable floor on how low we can get housing prices? That floor feels very close if so.
2. We've been promising the last five generations (or more) of Americans that a house is an Investment, capital I, an excellent place to keep your money. How do we overcome the political pressure to turn a house into a depreciating investment for the length of time required to get housing to be affordable again? What kind of politician would put their neck on the line to piss off every boomer and 75% of gen X and 30% of millennials, or whatever the house ownership distribution is?
There's a big difference between land prices and the building prices. When costs rise 5% per year for a house that's untouched, that's almost entirely the land price going up.
You can make housing cheaper by putting more houses on the same amount of land. In high cost areas, the price of land dominates the cost of housing.
Political pressure to change the investment nature of housing can come from various directions, for example establishing a land value tax, which eliminates the financial incentive to speculate on rising land prices by keeping people out of your area, redistributes all those unearned land rents to the population equally, as is only fair, and also results in a lot of people selling land to be redeveloped taht are otherwise hoarding it when the rest of society would be using it a lot better. Of course, in societies with high levels of land ownership, the voting public usually tries to vote away such extremely fair taxes.
Politically, we must stop prioritizing the views of homeowners at the local level. They already got their reward, massive unearned capital gains on their residence, there's no need to give them priority on land use over the general needs of society.
> Politically, we must stop prioritizing the views of homeowners at the local level. They already got their reward, massive unearned capital gains on their residence, there's no need to give them priority on land use over the general needs of society.
They are the majority of people in most areas, so it does make sense that they would be given priority in some ways.
The rest of your post is unsubstantiated vitriol, which isn't exactly convincing.
You quoted my vitriol to the homeowners, the rest is not vitriol, it's basic land economics.
> They are the majority of people in most areas, so it does make sense that they would be given priority in some ways.
In some ways sure. But in the ways that they are? Absolutely not, it's basic unfairness. The entire tax system is tilted in favor of home owners. We don't need to do that, we could make it more equal so that people with less wealth are not penalized.
It's not "basic land economics", it's your personal opinion about how things should be and whether you think current policies are fair.
The tax code does favor home ownership, because people want to support it. Less people will be able to afford their own home without that support, which seems to be the opposite of what you want.
High levels of home ownership combined with "local control" and "democracy" enables the "haves" who already own homes to weaponize government to keep supply low and home values high. Zoning restrictions, building codes, taxes, and other government tools are brought to bear to support this. The "have nots" don't have a chance.
Austin seems to be a counter-example when they "instituted an array of policy reforms" in 2015 that showed great results. Sadly the key may be appealing to the greed of existing homeowners. Changing zoning to allow tall apartment buildings where single family dwellings once stood lets existing home owners make even more money by selling than they'd make by continuing to restrict supply. While it's sad if that's the only path to success, we'll have to take small successes where we can find them.
I'd also rethink these questions under the assumption that incomes rise over time as the dollar reduces in purchasing power. The original premise was that due to inflation the cost you paid for a home would reduce your economic burden for housing. The slow and steady rise of inflation along with income would guarantee your loan to income ratio would improve.
The last few years have distorted this promise and I think some people have taken a more extreme view of the time window in the name of increased short-term profits.
All said the price you pay today being less of a burden over time was never meant to be a short-term profit motive in the discussion of homes as a economic safe haven.
To create artificial scarcity on a free market, it should be either a direct monopoly, or a giant cartel that includes every single developer and has mechanisms of punishing the outliers.
Because central planners do not have the information processing feedback loops necessary to distribute all of the complex network of component commodities.
Truly there is some scarcity of resources in any given place that takes energy to extract, transform, and transport to the desired location.
Because everything cannot be everywhere, there will be unmet needs in a society.
The "free" market economy allows for a natural price discovery of everything which is more likely to not have shortages or overages in any given spot.
Granted this is pure basic economics. It does not imply when for a toy example, there are 10 people thirsty and a baby and there is a scarcity of milk, 1 cup, the milk should go to the highest bidder. obviously it should go to the baby.
Same thing with housing. There is a scarcity of all of the components that go into housing and administering the amenities that houses need in a city. Central planners do not have a good track record but with careful tracking and modulating feedback loops we might be able to meet more people's needs that an otherwise regulatory captured monopoly of vertically integrated home builders so that everyone has a better chance at a home.
But again not everyone can live everywhere logistically so how do you fairly distribute it? Obviously hunger gaming it in a cut throat capitalist world isn't working out too well but we do have the largest number of people ever on the planet so its a pretty decent system so far
Construction costs don't scale linearly with rent prices, it's a different market altogether that depends on regulation/worker supply/material costs/equipment/etc.
As long as construction costs remain below the value of the units all-in, there's profit motive for developers to build.
> As long as construction costs remain below the value of the units all-in, there's profit motive for developers to build.
Not true
Real estate development is extremely capital intensive and therefore it's a question of all-in cost of capital compared to other investment opportunities.
The opportunity cost has already factored that in. Unless you think cost calculations are arbitrarily forgetting to include certain costs for no reason?
Well for sure in the actual financial models yes, but it's demonstrably true that most HN commenters here do not know this is how to think about the question of returns.
And FWIW "opportunity cost" doesn't really show up as "a cost" in the traditional sense.
> And FWIW "opportunity cost" doesn't really show up as "a cost" in the traditional sense.
I cannot think of any forward-looking situation where opportunity cost doesn't show up. What case are you thinking of? The discussion, of course, is about a forward-looking situation.
In hindsight often one becomes more interested in seeing if the opportunity cost was paid. A common way to calculate that is to forget about cost and only look at expenses. More specifically, income minus expenses. The result of that calculation gives the opportunity realized. This may be what you are thinking of, but the opportunity cost is still there, it's just that the way of looking at it has changed.
That gets automatically decided by the market. That's the beauty of markets. They automatically solve the local knowledge problem. It takes a government to create a lack of housing.
This comment is phrased as if the article is confirming these points when it either doesn't mention them or even directly refutes them. First there is no mention of either crime or rent control in the article. But more importantly, it states that "A key piece of Austin’s strategy has been to encourage the construction of affordable housing." So why are you concluding that affordable housing isn't needed?
The comment is phrased in the greater context of the public discussion about housing, in general. Not the specific information of the article.
You know, like how a discussion about war might reference the various recent wars that everyone knows about; it's not limited to just the content of the article.
But it didn't reference anything, it stated political opinions like they were confirmed facts, provided zero evidence to support those assertions, and completely ignored the ways in which the article provides counterevidence.
They aren't saying affordable housing isn't needed. Just that the method for making housing affordable shouldn't be trying to make the current housing supply cheaper.
And from this is where you get "rent-control is a terrible idea". Essentially: trying to artificially drive down housing prices in any way is generally inadvisable if you can just build more housing.
Sure that's technically an opinion, but it's one based in facts, and it certainly doesn't have "zero evidence".
Blanket statements like this is the point of many of the above replies, it’s not a true statement with evidence. All rent control does not reduce the number of rentals, “more restrictive rent control”[1] [2] does. These nuances are important in the conversation.
Affordable housing is the only type of housing that will ever be built. Builders aren't so stupid as to build products that their customers can't buy. Government intervention is not needed.
Just up the street from me, a local builder is trying a tactic I have not seen before (in our area, at least). They are building out a new neighborhood, but it is quite diverse -- one end is dominated by duplexes in the 500K range and some smaller single family homes. The other end has larger, nicer homes priced at 2M or a little over. All in the span of a quarter mile or so.
They think it will work. I will be interested to see how it plays out.
I'm not sure if you're intentionally changing the definition of "affordable housing" in an attempt to make the desire for it seem silly or if you genuinely don't know how the term is typically used. But what you're describing is generally referred to as "market-rate housing" and not "affordable housing".
Affordable housing = housing that regular people can afford
The only silly thing here is that "low income housing" got rebranded as "affordable housing" and absolutely everything else got rebranded as "luxury homes" for political reasons.
"Market-rate housing" is even sillier given that it is literally the opposite of what "affordable housing" policies dictate
I'm not going to debate what the definitions should be, I'll just say I don't think it is productive to join an existing conversation using terms with different definitions than everyone else uses. Defining all housing as inherently "affordable" makes the term meaningless and even if you disagree with the motivations behind the desire for "affordable housing", at least the term has meaning in the way it's typically used.
You are quite literally debating what the definition should be, because this is _not_ the existing definition of affordable housing, it is legally what OP is saying. "Affordable housing" is just when the household spends <= 30% of gross income on housing related costs. This is the definition used by the HUD and the same definition applied in policymaking.
What >you< are referring to and what it is conflated with by progressive policymakers is "low income housing" which imposes an AMI based restriction on the resident's income. This in turn means that 30% of their income is much lower and restricts the sticker price of the home.
In recent years, most 'affordable housing' policy has been advanced by progressives, who use that term for marketing purposes, whereas the actual policy primarily relates to 'low income housing' or even 'very low income housing.' This does not mean 'affordable housing' = 'low income housing', it just means the term 'affordable housing' is used in the title and the actual measures advanced are related to AMI and 'low income housing.'
There is no "progressive" definition, income level is not at all part of the definition. Per the universal legal definition of 'affordable housing,' if a home costs $1B but is occupied by Elon Musk, it would still be affordable because it is less than 30% of his gross income.
When you are dealing with income levels it is universally called 'low income housing,' and the HUD definition is already scaled to local income levels, the 'A' in AMI stands for 'Area.'
You are conflating marketing ('we need more affordable housing!') with policy ('low income housing')
It is productive to decline to use propaganda terms. If, every time someone says they support affirmative action they are asked if they support having higher standards for Asian applicants to medical school than for white applicants that’s good because forcing people to defend their support of racist policies reduces support for them. By the same token pointing out that affordable housing doesn’t mean housing people can afford, it means politician allocated housing paid for by the general taxpayer, reduces support. Reducing support for bad things is good.
Its also helpful to know that there is a specific (US) program called "affordable housing" that subsidizes rents for low income people. The economic effect of that program is to increase rents (but not home prices). This especially hits the working poor who make just a bit too much to have subsidized rents.
This is not a program, it is a term used by the HUD and very explicitly does not relate to income levels. That is the point I keep making, when the modern (<5y) left keeps touting “affordable housing” they are misusing the term simply because they don’t want to say “low income housing” even though everybody acknowledges they are actually referring to “low income housing.”
It is very important to distinguish the two because “affordable housing” is a marketing term that could reasonably convince someone that the policy is meant to help 80% of people including themselves, when in actuality it is low income housing which is restricted to <20% of the area population and even fewer voters.
I like this reasoning. If there exists a person or organization that can afford to buy a thing then it is an affordable thing. Now this might sound like a tautology but that’s only because it is
That's not what gentrification is. Relevant to this article, I lived through the gentrification of large parts of Austin in the early 00s.
What happened was that good housing full of artists and musicians and other self-employed creatives began gentrifying, driving up property values, which drove up property taxes, which became unaffordable to the existing residents (who had owned their homes for a long time). Many (actually, most) of these artists had to sell and leave.
They often left for other cities. But hey at least the good houses everyone liked all got torn down to be replaced by McMansions for the influx of techbros.
Austin still has that slogan, "Keep Austin Weird." It failed. Austin isn't weird anymore. The University of Texas still is responsible for a lot of great stuff about Austin, but huge chunks of the city are just boring these days. There's certainly much less interesting culture happening. It's been airbnbified.
The existing residents (artists) made money by selling their appreciated houses. Those who could afford to remain were now in areas with less crime and poverty.
The new residents spent a ton of money to live in a place they themselves culturally diminished.
We should re-evaluate the winners and losers here.
I don't think many home owners got a price for their land that allowed them to buy a similar house elsewhere.
The world is far from an ideal model where what you get is what you deserve.
Note the history of the East Side power plant, which depressed property prices. Ditto, I-35 construction plans. The article says the plant will become a park now. After the new developers locked in purchases.
You see this business model everywhere. They buy up all the land around an industrial site, small airport, race track, pig farm that smells bad, etc, etc. Then they and their Karens lobby for rule changes that force that use out or make it non-competitive in the broader market. Then they develop the land.
Nothing will fix it until some case goes up to the supreme court and results in some sort of "they were there first the .gov can piss off" doctrine.
My heart breaks for those poor people whose houses became worth multiple times what they paid for them. A true tragedy. I would be devastated if my house became so valuable that the property taxes were more than I could afford.
Even if we don't enact Prop-13-like things to keep property taxes reasonable I'm sure we could get a compromise where your property tax remains stable as long as you deed the appreciation over baseline to the city/county.
> good housing full of artists and musicians and other self-employed creatives
It looks like - it might not be what you mean, but it looks like - you're saying 'good housing' is housing that has "artists and musicians and other self-employed creatives", as opposed to poor working people.
Many artists and self-employed creatives are themselves poor working people - making art is work (and so is marketing it to potential customers), and most artists are not lucky or successful enough to become wealthy doing it.
But yes, I think there is a sense in which people who are driven to create have some kind of ineffable, cultural capital that people without this drive do not have. So a neighborhood that is full of artists is more interesting, and therefore more valuable to spend time in, than one that isn't.
See the photo in the above East Side article. In the old neighborhood, people talked to the photographer because the front yards didn't have privacy fences.
What is a better faith interpretation of downplaying gentrification like this? Like what do we talk about when we talk about gentrification if not this? Gp is not even, like, denying the concept, and literally saying that it is good (in a sarcastic way).
It's not "better faith" to construct an entire alternative world for the user's comment to remove it from the actually existing implications of their point. I am not sure what that it is, but it certainly isn't a healthy exchange of ideas.
"I think we should burn down all the forests"; "Oh geeze that sounds like a terrible idea.."; "um it's actually pretty bad faith for you to assume they were talking about forests on Earth and not some bad evil forests that could hypothetically exist somewhere else..." taps the guidelines sign
I don't want to throw the dictionary at yeah but gentrification is the word we generally use to talk about a downside to maybe a more general effort in urban development. This is really really weird hill to die on.. Just pick another word, I don't think you'd lose the nuance you are trying to inject here. As it stands its just needlessly provocative, a Twitter-hot-take vibe that is generally frowned upon around here.
Also (imo) don't link to yourself like this! Especially when its to just another short comment in the same thread! Why do that??
There’s nothing good faith to be interpreted from a pithy comment that denies real suffering experienced by real people. If OP wanted to be interpreted in good faith they should’ve written more substance to their comment.
Can you guess what the #1 source of wealth increase in the AA community has been over the last 20 years? That's right, grandma's house...guess where she lived.
This is a huge important part - if gentrification of an AA community occurs in an area where the homes are owned by the residents, it's a great wealth-growing event; generational even.
If the gentrification of an AA community occurs where the residents rent then they capture none of it and are forced out.
Let's assume communities are rated on a scale of 1 to 10. A "gentrified community" goes from being a 3 to being an 8. Renters are forced to move because they can't afford 8/10-rated-community rents, while existing owners profit handsomely. On this we all agree.
Where do the new residents of this now-8/10 community come from? Probably a place that was less than 8/10 - maybe it was 7. So now there's less demand for all the 7s and their rents decrease, allowing residents living in 6s to move there. And so on.
Assuming housing construction in the region has kept up with the population, even the renters who were forced out of the previously 3/10 community will likely find new housing in a 4/10 neighborhood at the same price. Their relationships from the old place were probably disrupted by the move (bad) but they also got better housing for the same money (good).
The key in this is housing construction must be allowed to increase with population.
Exactly - when things are happening "naturally" for some value of "not artificially constrained" you find that people move over time and what were the luxury dwellings of 20/30/50 years ago are the new "starter homes" of today.
When supply is artificially constrained, the old homes get torn down and replaced with luxurious ones - without increasing dwelling spaces available.
Good for whom? If it's good for the residents, that's great. If it's bad for the residents, who get driven out, but good for some developers and outside rich people - that's what gentrification is.
Unless all of the housing is owned by non-residents prior to gentrification, some residents always benefit from their neighborhood going upscale. Either through increased home values, allowing them to sell and improve their lives. Or because it's now a more pleasant area to live in.
Even renters in gentrifying areas may profit if housing construction outpaces population growth. Yes, they may have to move, but also the places they move to on their current budget may be nicer - because the people who can afford better have moved too.
> increased home values, allowing them to sell and improve their lives
That also raises property taxes, making the neighborhood unaffordable and driving them out.
> it's now a more pleasant area to live in.
For new wealthy residents. People who have spent lifetimes there don't want everything to change and have their communities destroyed.
> Yes, they may have to move, but also the places they move to on their current budget may be nicer - because the people who can afford better have moved too.
These are theoretical and very general averages. The actual individuals often do not benefit. Being forced to move is not a mere inconvenience to your theory.
The alternative: new housing doesn't get built. Existing housing - including the "bad" neighborhood that isn't redeveloped for fear of "gentrification" - gets bid up to the moon. People who can't afford rent end up moving anyway and commuting from very far away, if they're lucky. Or they end up on the streets, if they aren't so lucky.
That isn't theoretical. I just described the SF Bay Area.
When people in NYC are driven out of their neighborhoods because of gentrification, they generally move down south. There isn’t some magical part of town that they can afford with their “current budget”
Economic theory says some things are theoretically impossible, no literally, but economic theory wouldn't say that here:
The local housing market is much more complex than supply and demand, with larger economic factors (e.g., interest rates), very imperfect information (affecting everyone from buyers, to sellers, real estate agents, lenders, etc.), coordination by landlords (e.g., RealPage), non-economic factors such as prejudice (or just a co-op board!), government actions, larger trends, temporary inefficiencies, etc.
Economic theory is useful, but it does not predict or circumscribe the immediate reality of individuals. Life is much more complicated than that.
First, I didn't say there is no supply effect; I said it's far from impossible for the effect to make a difference.
Second, many factors are involved in a complex market; you and I don't know how much effect the supply had in this case. That you are interested in that input isn't evidence of its effect.
In this case affordable housing nets out as a way to overcome policy barriers to market rate housing. So it actually makes the market freer.
Many other implementations of affordable housing further raise the barrier and thus even if any is built it doesn’t help widespread housing affordability issues.
Rent control is just another flavor of housing affordability policy that often (always?) backfires.
Crime, social peace, and economic opportunity are very linked. A lot of house prices in urban areas are wildly distributed and often the increase cost is to buy distance and safety (often just a couple blocks) from high crime areas.
>In this case affordable housing nets out as a way to overcome policy barriers to market rate housing. So it actually makes the market freer.
>Many other implementations of affordable housing further raise the barrier and thus even if any is built it doesn’t help widespread housing affordability issues.
Can you be specific with what you mean here? Because this reads like a no true Scotsman argument that it doesn't count as "affordable housing" if it works. The article discusses the programs encouraging income-restricted units which seems like a classic affordable housing program. What specifically do you think is different in this case?
Affordable housing in a vacuum disincentivizes development and results in worse affordability.
Affordable housing used as an incentive or way to overcome other barriers to housing (density limits, height limits, zoning etc) that makes the market more “free” net is will produce more development.
You don’t need it for development but it can be used effectively depending on other policies. As with all things it depends on what policy makers are optimizing for. These are all tradeoffs. But affordable by itself all else equal limits developer upside and incentives less development meaning less supply and higher prices.
>Affordable housing used as an incentive or way to overcome other barriers to housing (density limits, height limits, zoning etc)
I'm not sure what type of affordable housing program doesn't meet this definition. They are almost always tied to incentives for developers, including sometimes in the form of a removal of other housing restrictions. Or are you specifically objecting to financial assistance on the renter/buyer side? Because I assumed the “it” in “it doesn’t need to be “affordable”” was referencing the new development.
See San Francisco. Also generally anywhere else where prices are rising and developers can’t develop and yet there are a lot of affordable housing policies. CA as a whole has mismanaged this so badly they have a net migration outflow.
Also removing other housing restrictions that ostensibly were put in there by constituents is a valid reason for constituents to oppose AH. They get called NIMBYs for this but if the local populace wanted more high density development then the density limits wouldnt be there to be excepted by AH
> if the local populace wanted more high density development then the density limits wouldnt be there to be excepted by AH
If people didn't want housing there, it wouldn't be built. If they didn't want the exemptions to be codified, then they wouldn't be.
The only way your statement makes sense is if you restrict "local" to a sufficiently small subset of the people (a town? A block? One single address?), but in that case, a greater number of people within a greater definition of "local" seem to disagree.
If the state gifts a locality power to impose zoning restrictions, then the state can usually alter (or withdraw) that gift when it stops being beneficial to the people of the state, even if a small subset of those people living in that one locality don't like it.
>Also generally anywhere else where prices are rising and developers can’t develop and yet there are a lot of affordable housing policies.
Like I said, the “it” in “it doesn’t need to be “affordable”” seemed like it was referencing the previous “Build more housing”, so situations in which nothing is built are different. If your original intent was that not all housing policy should be about affordable housing, then we agree. But I do think it's an important part of the solution.
Unless you want to build more sprawl-oriented social housing, you'd still need, in most American cities, to reform zoning codes and building codes (single stair and elevator reform) to get Vienna style social housing.
It's a "yes, and" problem though, mostly. Let the market build what it can, and if you want to pursue social housing, do that too - just don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good and delay the reforms while you try and put together all the social housing pieces.
No, you need a government agency which will build social housing.
Not once has the private sector ever been "encouraged" to build social housing with deregulation. The only reason it keeps getting touted as The Solution in the media is because deregulation would boost their profits.
The bottleneck is land, anyway. If you dont tax that enough or take it with eminent domain then you'll end up like San Francisco with absurdly low density housing and criminally high rents.
The problem in San Francisco is NIMBYism, where supposed 'socialists' try and stop purely below market rate housing because it's the wrong shape or size or something.
Of course. they have enormous mortgages and anything which drags down the absurd value of their home is an ominous threat.
Blaming "fake socialists" or "nimbyism" doesnt change the fact that they are entirely rational actors in an economic system that is rigged to make the wealthy wealthier (e.g. with prop 13).
In fact, it's a clever rhetorical device to conceal the root cause and displace criticism towards the main culprits and, well, you fell for it.
NIMBYs exist throughout the US, even in states without Prop 13 or similar things.
Some of them are even renters.
No one is trying to conceal the problems with unfair tax systems - indeed, the people who spend time advocating for housing are probably your most likely allies in trying to fix it.
It’s worth noting that a major confounding factor is that, unlike most cities with a housing crisis, Vienna is well below its population peak and so does not need to build nearly as much housing
During that peak Vienna’s housing situation was infamously bad though. You’d have single rooms shared by multiple families and beds being used by multiple people on a timetable.
We love solutions to housing that sound good but won’t work, like rent control and subsidizing demand. Building more is unpopular because it would actually work.
The same goes for homelessness. Feel good sound good solutions are popular. Housing the homeless is not.
BTW I have this weird crazy hypothesis that there might be a connection between homelessness and insufficient housing supply. Like, people not in a home, and not enough homes. I know it’s a stretch.
Sometimes I feel like there are other problems like this that we don’t really want to solve but want to pretend to solve.
Rent control is one of the best ideas, and it may be a civilizational, foundational idea.
Property ownership is at the very core of entrenched power, and the foundation of rent-seeking and wealth asymmetry.
If you look at even the Monarchs of long past - it wasn't their 'titles' that made them powerful - it was the economic rent that came along with the land ownership.
Even in more open market economies, property is still is basically long term economics lording over short term economics of wage earning workers.
Being able to kick someone out of their home almost arbitrary basically puts working class people at the 'total whims of the market' and it's one of the most disruptive concepts imaginable.
If we take the view that 'housing is about housing first - only about investment to the extent it does not disrupt housing' - then a different perspective takes shape.
Many Canadian provinces have 'basic rent controls' and it does not generally prevent new housing development.
If anything, providing 'housing stability' is probably the best way to create base prosperity, so those people can go out and spend on all the other things.
There might need to be some degree of leeway here and there for certain kinds of density challenges, but that can be had with rent control
There is almost unlimited land in North America to build on - if in one spot it's a bit difficult - build elsewhere.
If people want to have 'density' then incorporate an area and 'build density' in that area.
Also it does need to be 'affordable' but that can work with regulations.
Edit: our housing problems are about screwed up management, it's actually not even an ideological problem underneath. Like 'rent control' the way it is framed scares some people, but its literally province wide in Ontario, Quebec and it's a 'non issue' for new unit hinderance. Even the nimbyism stuff can be worked around: if people don't want high-rises next to them, it's their right, but there's a lot less opposition to 'mild density' especially if it fits in local cultural and aesthetic context. We can have our cake and it eat on housing. I think we invent ideological lenses because it's easier to frame 'narratives' than it is just weird policies, special circumstances, hiccups, different municipal things going on all at once.
It would be far more efficient to simply tax away all rent collected from land instead of grossly warping markets and creating terrible incentives for all involved.
The reason is that you can’t produce more land. Fixed supply will also warp economic markets and create terrible incentives (land speculation).
If you want the best solution, you implement a land value tax. If you want the 2nd best solution, tax property (Land + Building value). If you want the worst solution, implement rent control.
Create an entity with a mandate to build and the funds to make it solvent. Basic and dignified shelter that enables all the other economic activity does not need to be a profit center.
This is possible but requires lots of money and oversight. I have never heard about scheme like that that replaced private investors. But as a way to offset some RC problems it could probably work.
> Rent control is not 'warping markets' - it's the notion that 'homes are markets' that is 'warped' - that's the basis of the problem.
something can be essential + morally important + still governed by supply/demand constraints, this is such a silly statement to make. If there was no market, there would be no efficient allocation of resources. You need to make homes abundant to have the most economically (and thus, morally) efficient outcome.
> What we want to do is make it so that 'rich people get rich' not from rent-seeking but from real value creation.
Agreed! Tax the full rental value of land (rent seeking) and do not tax the value of the productive value creation that happens on it (building, capital, labor).
It's a bit disturbing and dystopian that one counldn't think of any other way to 'distribute things efficiently' than markets ... but worse, that even contemplating that there could be 'other ways' would be 'silly'.
This is the genteel version of "BUT THAT'S COMMUNIST!!" in response to any kind of policy that isn't rooted in a really narrow purview of markets.
Also - it's also a misrepresentation to consider that 'rent control' is somehow not quite a 'market based' solution, or, that considering 'homes' to be a civic function first, and economic issue second, somehow means they'd completely outside market functions.
"have the most economically (and thus, morally) efficient outcome." <- Adam Smith himself would completely disagree.
The argument I'm making here is directly against this warped sense of what value is.
Markets are just a system of rules that allocate only through the narrow purview of those rules.
We only get 'efficiency' as defined by those rules.
There are many examples, but at easy one, is that we grow our GDP substantially by getting older and sicker, and 'having more work to do' to take care of our system gone awry, or, that wars can be very profitable due to the armaments and subsequent reconstruction efforts.
Both of those by the are rooted in a similar notion - that we don't actually measure 'consumer surplus' - which is the value or 'profit' obtained by the individual, we only ever 'producer surplus'.
If we started to put 'consume surplus' as part of the GDP (impossible, because value is in the eye of the beholder, but maybe plausibly, it could be done) - then we'd see the 'consumer GDP' drop off a cliff as we got old and sick, so much that it would not make up for the increased consumer side GDP benefit of 'medical economy'.
That's just to start.
You could look at national security and justice, and how if we had to pay our soldiers for the risks they take - it would never work.
The more challenging one is to start recognizing the markets are mostly a function of power arbitrage, and not value creation.
We like to think that 'the man who builds his home, and does work for others, creates value, while the man who does nothing all day does not' - yes - that's the easiest way to see it, and it's not wrong. But most of the economy does not work that way, it works on power. Traditionally, it's rooted in real estate, now, it's also rooted in resource access and I would say finance. (And of course as always, political access and monopoly rights).
We should make 'housing' the primary focus, and use 'markets' as a 'tool' to enable social outcomes, not the other way around.
So the 'baseline things' - like basic housing, civil infrastructure, security, food security - those we have to have to be grounded in non-market terms using 'markets as tools' - and then the rest of everything, well, people can have fun, do as they please etc..
Critically - more people should to read Adam Smith, to see where he was coming from. The 'godfather' of economics was the first person to grasp it's limitations.
> It's a bit disturbing and dystopian that one counldn't think of any other way to 'distribute things efficiently' than markets ... but worse, that even contemplating that there could be 'other ways' would be 'silly'.
It's not disturbing, nor dystopian. And I didn't say there isn't any other way of distributing things efficiently, but there is no way of distributing _more_ efficiently.
Ultimately, you understand the beauty of markets, or you don't. Under the right conditions (fair markets, open information, competition, no monopoly), the invisible hand of the market distributes more efficiently and fairly than any individual or team ever could, without requiring the labor of an expert to be spent doing something that the invisible hand of the market could, leaving them to use their highly valuable skillset in some other way to actually benefit mankind.
My argument is specifically predicated on the fact that a housing market is well positioned to benefit, and doesn't because of poor policy decisions, like rent control, overly restrictive zoning, poorly designed tax schemes, etc. - which you assumed it isn't and then broadly and generally said I don't understand market limitations, agreed with me in a super roundabout way, and made sure to include some irrelevant nonsense about power arbitrage instead of value creation wrt housing. You lack focus and brevity. Truth comes from understanding things simply, not complicating the domain until you can apply any lens you want to view it in any way you choose.
Property is not zero sum. You can build nicer things and improve land and me doing so doesn't hurt you.
Land IS zero sum. Land I own is land you do not own, and does not serve you, and I should not profit from the value of the LAND, only the value of the property I build / maintain / manage.
> it's the notion that 'homes are markets' that is 'warped'
A market in this case isn't a literal street market with vendors hawking their goods. The word "market" describes the relationship between people who have more than they need selling to people who need and would prefer to exchange their money (or vouchers etc.) to acquire it.
Housing can't not be a market anymore than food or labor could not be a market. It's like saying it's warped that water evaporates and becomes clouds and turns into precipitation. It's a word that describes one of the natural systems of how the world works.
Even in communist societies where the State owns all the land and all the housing and decides how to distribute it, you still have a State-owned-and-directed market between citizens who need housing and a State that has excess housing and provides it to citizens.
Rent control doesnt change the underlying fundamentals but it inhibits the ability of the ownership class from exploiting the working class based upon those fundamentals.
It will also provide immediate relief for struggling citizens, whereas a LVT or taxing property will take time to actually drive construction which will push down rents.
It's something local governments often have the authority to implement, unlike LVT.
A little mentioned fact: the highest rate of house building in new york (FAR FAR higher than today) coincided with by far the STRICTEST rent controls. Something to ponder next time somebody tells you that rent controls just stops homes from being built.
Rent control is the wrong solution to the right problem (ie affordable housing).
It creates all sorts of problems that wouldn't exist otherwise. For example, if you've been in a rent control house or apartment for 10+ years and are paying significantly less, what happens if you want to move? Or just need a bigger place? It's a huge impeediment to mobility and flexibility.
Also, you have an adversarial relationship with your landlord. They want you to leave so they can raise the rent. They'll skimp on maintenance, turn off the heat (even when it's illegal) and generally make your life miserable until you leave.
The solution to these problems is social housing, meaning the government becomes a significant supplier of affordable, quality housing. The very wealthy and the real estate industry don't want this however because it will decrease profits.
> Property ownership is at the very core of entrenched power,
In the literature, there is a distinction made between private property and personal property. I'm fine with people owning their own home if they want. That's personal property. Private property is when we allow people and corporations to hoard housing. I'm all for making it financiall punitive to own more than one house.
The problems that rent control creates are far smaller than the problems that exist without it.
To start - your 'very first example' is not even really 'a problem'.
'Without rent control' - you get kicked out of your abode every few years if your salary doesn't keep up with housing inflation. With rent control, you have the option of 'having a home; you decide when you want to leave (for the most part).
The answer to the 'second example', 'adversarial tenant/landlord' is that the theory doesn't line up with reality for the most part. Again - in most rent controlled areas this kind of stuff does not happen, especially if it's entrenched in the culture. It works well in a ton of housing markets like Quebec, Germany.
The primary concern about rent control limiting expansion ... just does not exist. It doesn't really impede new builds.
> 'adversarial tenant/landlord' is that the theory doesn't line up with reality
So disconnected from reality that it beggars belief.
Anytime you put two or more adult people into a relationship together and at least one person feels like they do not have the option to leave if things get bad (e.g. landlord feels like the tenant is wrecking the property but has no right to evict, tenant feels like landlord is not taking care of maintenance but feels pressured to stay due to artificially low rent), the result is toxic suffering.
Rent control is literally the removal of the right to evict a tenant who refuses the otherwise-uncontrolled rent increase you request. The inability to evict them for refusing the rent increase is what de-facto keeps the rent from increasing beyond its controlled limit.
Oh, I get that, but what's stopping the landlord from evicting someone who damages their property? Or if the landlord no longer wants to rent and wants to live in it themselves?
> To start - your 'very first example' is not even really 'a problem'.
Yes, it is. Anywhere with significant and strong rent control results in a large number of people who simply cannot move. Look, rent control is better than no rent control but it address the symptom not the problem. The real problem is that rents shouldn't significantly outpace inflation. In a better world, you should be able to easily move because you're not locked in to a below-market rent that you don't want to lose. And rents get more expensive because a whole bunch of people make sure that housing is an appreciating asset. It should be a depreciating asset.
> The answer to the 'second example', 'adversarial tenant/landlord' is that the theory doesn't line up with reality for the most part. Again - in most rent controlled areas this kind of stuff does not happen
You will not find in any American city, especially one with rent control, where tenants do not absolutely hate their landlords as the general rule. What are you smoking?
"Anywhere with significant and strong rent control results in a large number of people who simply cannot move."
Having the choice when to move if the far, far more ideal scenario - there is not even a discussion.
This is not Apples to Oranges, it's Apple to Bag of Apples.
Rent Control gives people the option to stay, yes, with the realization that it may be more costly to move later.
So 'no rent control' is a horrible situation, with rent control it's a workable situation.
"l not find in any American city, especially one with rent control, where tenants do not absolutely hate their landlords as the general rule. What are you smoking?"
That is a function of garbage culture and total social break down - not rent control.
I live in an area where everything is rent controlled in entire region - and we dont have that.
This is tantamount to the "We need guns everywhere to stay safe!" argument so many people make because they can't wrap their heads around a community of people that just don't act crazy and violent.
>'Without rent control' - you get kicked out of your abode every few years if your salary doesn't keep up with housing inflation. With rent control, you have the option of 'having a home; you decide when you want to leave (for the most part).
But your renting, you don't own your home, why are you entitled to live there forever paying a below market rate? Maintenance has costs too, eventually if you live there long enough the property owner can even be losing money on your share of the building upkeep (paid by other people's higher rents). And yes the government _should_ let you increase rent in that instance, but then you're relying on your local government, which can dramatically change decade to decade as the political landscape changes.
The quickest Google revealed rents have gone up 71% since 2019 in Quebec [1], so I'm not sure if it's the poster child for rent control. I will say that at least makes them seam reasonable to accepting increases.
> 'Without rent control' - you get kicked out of your abode every few years if your salary doesn't keep up with housing inflation.
Nope, you don't. You just do your best to foresee that outcome in advance before renting and pick a house you can afford. And if rents start to move against you, you plan to move out well in advance of getting "kicked out" by unaffordable prices. But that's actually easier than the status quo since no rent control means (1) lower rents overall for the same quality housing! and (2) everyone gets a home for the right price, there is no hidden privilege or lottery aspect to it. Of course it should be paired with higher property taxes or LVT so the rent itself isn't just value-capture by landlords, but that's politically doable. Just a matter of not picking the wrong political fight.
I think it's a matter of perspective maybe more than 'knowing what they are talking about'.
Like - seeing property as 'investment and ownership' vs 'places where people live' is sometimes pretty big gap. Especially when we've been grounded in 'mortgages and wealth creation' for regular middle class people.
Rent control and the underlying civilization power dynamics are kind of a subtle thing, I think most folks are going to just answer in terms of 'what is good for them'.
Rent control drives up rents, not down. Since rent control was enacted in SF, rents have increased by 15x in 45 years. That's 24% a year annualized over 45 years. Its similar for other places that enacted it.
Rarely in human history has a specific policy failed more spectacularly. Yet you still hear supposedly educated people advocate for it every year.
> Rent control drives up rents, not down. Since rent control was enacted in SF, rents have increased by 15x in 45 years.
A couple of things:
You're aware of the Californian property tax control? If you aren't, go read up on the 197X Proposition 13, as well as the ways even vaguely-savvy landowners can get around the "tax is reassessed when the property changes hands" rule. IMO, it's only fair that tenants get the same sort of price-increase-protection that landlords get. If the landlords get rid of Prop 13 and anything even remotely like it for the next fifty years, I'll be first in line to clamor for the removal of what passes for rent control in the few cities that have it.
Unless you -as a developer- especially request otherwise, SF's rent control only applies to buildings that were in existence back in 197X, when the ordinance was enacted. New units are not covered by rent control. It does not apply to any commercial buildings... just residential rentals. It also only controls the rate of rent increase until the unit is vacated. Once it's vacated, the landlord is free to charge whatever rent they wish.
Your story gets confounded by the fact that -for a variety of reasons- it's nearly impossible to build any new residential buildings in SF. When demand is met with a nearly zero increase in the supply, the cost of the thing being demanded tends to go up.
Rents are generally quite high in California, not just in SF. From [0]
2000 1990 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940
United States $602 $447 $243 $108 $71 $42 $27
California $747 $620 $283 $126 $79 $42 $27
Washington $663 $445 $254 $113 $71 $43 $22
Only a few cities in California have rent control [1], so that doesn't explain the fact that rents are high state-wide.
Though, it is more interesting to look at the numbers when adjusted to 2000's dollar. [2] I wonder if your "15x" figure is inflation-adjusted...
2000 1990 1980 1970 1960 1950 1940
United States $602 $571 $481 $415 $350 $257 $284
California $747 $792 $560 $484 $389 $256 $286
Washington $663 $569 $503 $434 $350 $263 $226
I don't know how much I buy this. Washington, DC added about 60,000 units between 2015 and now, so a little less proportionally to Austin (with 1 million residents vs 650k). Metro area, 160k more in DC, with a population of 3 million (vs 2.5 million in Austin). Even if DC's unit add is slower than Austin's, you'd expect median rent changes to be within the ballpark, right? Maybe only a slight increase instead of the small decrease Austin saw?
No. Rent doubled.
I don't know if Austin or DC is an outlier, but considering how many states sued property managers and their rental management software providers over price-fixing, I'm leaning toward Austin. In the rest of the country, building more doesn't lower rents. Lowering rents lowers rents. And you have to force landlords to do so.
I suspect most of the rent increase is due to inflation (sticker price). Nonetheless rents are still rising, which means 60k units were not enough to outweigh demand.
When you aren't building more housing, for whatever reason, rent control is the only thing that prevents domestic 'immigrants' into your city from making all the residents homeless.
Since cities can't stop migration into them, it's the only tool they have to protect their existing residents.
---
PS. If you believe in trial-by-combat for housing, why not a similar approach to border control? It's the same concept, open it all up and let the market decide whether your existence is worth it.
There are billions of honest, hard-working, capable people who will happily pay more than you for where you live, do your work for less pay than you're willing to accept, and would love to live... Wherever you currently feel entitled to live.
What gives you any right to deny the market from improving the welfare of your landlord and employer?
> Also why should cities prioritize protecting residents based on how long they've lived there? Everyone counts the same.
That's a great question. Why do countries prioritize existing citizens over all people who want to move into them? We are, after all, all the same. Two legs, two arms, just under a dozen fingers, most of us aren't destructive shitheads.
If we just let in anyone who wants to emigrate, you wouldn't be trapped in an apartment, or home, or city or life you were born into. You would always have the chance to 'upgrade' to one that's worse!
You're not emigrating anywhere, lol. Should I be treated like trash when I move from Bronx to Queens? How about SoHo to Tribeca? All US citizens have the same rights and every vote counts the same as every other vote.
Should Juan be treated like trash if he wants to move from Mexico City or Honduras to Queens?
Why should you deny him that mobility? Is he any worse a person than you are? Why does he have to jump through hoops and quotas and queues and all sorts of degrading, dehumanizing bullshit before he can do so?
Why?
---
If your answer is 'because that's the law and because we can make him jump through all those hoops', that's the answer to why cities choose to protect people who are existing residents at the expense of people who aren't. Because it's the law and because they can, if you don't like it, tough, you are free to go somewhere else.
I guess I need to hear more about your seniority rules. If I leave in a city all my life and leave for a month, do I have to start over when I move back?
Not sure what your point is. My point is that the rules around rent exist to protect current residents of a city. Just like rules about immigration exist to protect current residents of a country.
If you think one of them is immoral and unfair, but the other isn't, you're the one who needs to square that cognitive dissonance - not me.
It sounds like you generally think economics should trump the welfare of existing residents. That's certainly a view, but a logical consequence of it is wide-open borders.
> you're the one who needs to square that cognitive dissonance - not me.
No, you are. You have imaginary rules about who should be protected in a city (based on seniority??) that nobody else is aware of and are certainly not following. It goes by things like age and net worth, and basically nobody gives a shit how long you've lived somewhere.
> You have imaginary rules about who should be protected in a city (based on seniority??)
Rent control is not imaginary (Any more than any other rules are), and yes, that is exactly how it functions, for the purpose that I have described.
It advantages senior occupants (Who are grandfathered into controlled rates), at the expense of junior ones, or ones who don't live there yet (Who are presented with inflated rates, for obvious economic reasons).
Well, build more housing and ensure the more housing is being bought by people who live in it or (if you don't find enough of those) by people who will rent it to them. Many problems occur when capital buys living space as an investment that needs to go up in value, since now there is an incentive to keep some scarcity.
truly incredible, instead of subsidizing demand you build more houses and just like that they're more affordable, somebody should write some economic theories on this.
So pretty much everything you've said here is wrong.
Build more housing? In a place like Austin, you can just keep building out, basically. To a point. Eventually cities doing this reach a limit. Houston and Atlanta are pretty much at or beyond that limit.
And it's not that building low-density SFH housing is the most economic. It's simply the most subsidized. Every road, every parking space, every sewer pipe, every water pipe, every utility pole, every school, every hospital, every police station, every fire station... they all add factor in to the true cost of housing and the more spread out things are, the more expensive those things become. Taken to extremes, look at the billions Houston spends now to add just one more lane (because this one will totally solve traffic) on, say, the Katy Freeway or the ring roads.
Yes it does need to be affordable. NYC is the posterchild for this. Nothing that's getting built on billionaire's row will ever trickle down to being affordable housing. They build ultra-luxury housing because it's the most profitable and it does absolutely nothing for anyone else because these units are just ways for non-residents (mostly) to park wealth and not pay their fair share of taxes.
Rent control is the wrong solution for the right problem and it's typically American. By that I mean it forces the solution onto private landlords who are going to do everything possible to get out of those obligations and deliver subpar but compliant housing. And they'll demand tax breaks for it. When in fact the solution is for the government to supply a large chunk of the housing market ie social housing. But there's a pervasive and wrong idea that we can only solve problems in the private sector and that's nothing more than a wealth transfer from the government to the already-wealthy.
"Just build more housing". Yeah, and then you get Houston. Cities need to be planned. Cities require infrastructure. And one of the most important thing cities need is public transit infrastructure, something sadly lacking in virtually every American city.
The core to so many of these problems is that we need to stop treating housing as a speculative asset. Owning two or more houses should be incredibly difficult and expensive and should be taxed punitively. By this I mean the capital gains on non-primary residences should be 80% and property taxes should be significantly higher.
I dont understand your solution, houses are expensive because there are too few of them in desirable places (otherwise we have plenty). The govt becoming a command economy wrt to housing does not fix the supply. If the govt is just supposed to handle all the supply and demand aspects of housing well I have good news, there is a lot of very cheap housing in former Soviet Republics just not desirable housing.
Also taxing homeowners harder doesnt really solve the problem. CA has insane taxes, SF especially has a giant budget. They just waste it. I dont believe that once the govt raises taxes they will suddenly become efficient and competent.
The idea that the more spread things out the more expensive they are is sound theory. However in practice, per capita taxes in a city are often higher than the rural or suburban regions. One water main should serve more people in a city and its cost amortized across the population should be cheaper.
In practice, cities tend to have tons of programs that drive taxes up. They are free to do that, not necessarily bad, but also not efficient from a tax payer perspective.
There's no reason for houses to be as expensive as they are. They are expensive because we've created incentives to make them more expensive. This is because we treat houses as investments, allow people to hoard housing, build the wrong tyhpe of housing (because it's more profitable), allow non-residents to use housing to park wealth, etc. So voters vote in politicians who put up barriers to build more housing and to defeat any kind of public transit infrastructure even though it would absolutely benefit people who still want to drive (by removing people from the roads who don't). Why? Because taxes.
Housing should be for residents of that city to provide a utility: shelter. Not as an investment vehicle.
It simply doesn't have to be this way. The poster child for this is Vienna [1][2].
Increasing house prices are an illusion of wealth creation. Let's say you buy a house for $200k but over the years it goes up to $800k. But every house costs $800k so you still have only 1 housing unit's worth of wealth. You've simply increased the barrier for younger people to buy houses.
Put another way: increasing house prices are simply stealing from the next generation and that money is really going to the already-wealthy and, to a lesser extent, the old. Just look at the median age of homebuyers in the US, currently 59 [3].
You seem to know Houston; alas yes Austin was formerly surrounded by open spaces.
But let's not miss the point of the article. This is a right-ward shift of the supply curve. It means that the economics of building the next unit got cheaper. That's the point.
I've seen a lot of neighborhoods across the USA, and Austin making way for higher-density housing on urban corridors (Lamar) is like, duh, this is more live-able. There are new towers along rail and bus route, townhomes packed in, and behind the tree line it's now possible for some single-family lots to become duplexes or fourplexes. And rather than McMansion ugly, the new Austin residents are dressing those up to look pretty darn cool.
There is a lot more to be done to remove supply-side barriers in every city.
Houston has a very high density of delicious food. The traffic is horrible but if there was a big investment into public transit, I think it would be a very nice place to live.
Multiple things can be done at once. The policies you laid out are not mutually exclusive, and have different utility for different communities. But yes, fundamentally more housing is needed for growing populations. Conversions and rezoning are also important parts of the urban equation to “build more housing”, not just exurban McMansion developments.
It's possible to build more housing and have rent control. Rent control is the only thing allowing working class families to live a dignified life in the USA's most desirable cities. Land value tax and social housing are simply not politically feasible – rent control is.
That is simply not true in any way. Have you ever lived somewhere with rent control? Working class families who have members working jobs in rent controlled areas commute in from often over an hour outside of the city. There are only 3 types of people who live in those cities: those in public housing, upper middle class and wealthy. Their plumbers live in Tracy.
You may be implying it but you also need to make sure this new housing goes into the long term rental market, instead of being secondary residences or airbnbs. I've seen it happen first hand in my home town. That may not be a problem for Austin though.
And yet, if you dig through the various comments on HN over the years regarding SF housing costs the overwhelming conesus is more rent control. Sometimes, the most common sense solution turns out to be the correct one.
Investors add to demand for housing. This will help drive up prices. And no, builders will not necessarily increase supply if they can realise increased margin of profit due to increased demand. We see that with RAM manufacturers. RAM suppliers constrain supply to boost margins. Same with house builders. The difference is people can go without RAM but everyone needs a place to live.
1) morally. Alice deserves it because her intention is more pure.
2) financially. Bob gets it, because he can pay more for it than alice.
Which choice above you make as a policy direction is a reflection of your world view. I'm voting for 2), but i can understand the POV of 1), even tho i disagree with it.
You are entirely missing the point. The correct answer is to build 2 houses. The problem with these policies is that they artificially restrict demand. If they didn't do that, nobody would have a problem with them.
> And here I thought people who want to live in houses add to demand for housing.
Desire is a necessary component in demand, but it also requires willingness at a given price point. If houses are selling for $1,000,000 and you only have $500,000 to spend, then no matter how much you dream every night about having a home, you are not a contributor to demand.
Counterpoint: houses sell for $1,000,000 because there are more people with $500,000 (and every other number less than $1,000,000) who want those houses than there are houses.
Said comment doesn't mention demand. However, it is true that supply and demand normally find equilibrium, which is the concept the comment was trying to describe. Which is the same concept I described. In simple terms, if you have 10 houses for sale (supply), then in a normally functioning market there will only be 10 people with the desire and willingness to buy them (demand). Many more may have the desire to own a home, but factors like price see their willingness disappear.
There are two exceptions:
- Surplus: When the price is too high and is unable to fall. Where supply exceeds demand. This manifests as there being houses trying to be sold, but that nobody wants to buy.
- Shortage: When the price is too low and is unable to rise. Where demand exceeds supply. This manifests in non-price mechanisms taking over. You might, for example, see houses get sold via lottery as a potentially higher bidder is prevented (e.g. the government stepped in and started enforcing a price ceiling) from offering more.
There may be some argument that there is a housing surplus in some markets, where houses are for sale but never find a willing buyer. However, it seems most houses eventually sell. There is likely no argument for there being a housing shortage by the technical definition. If you have unlimited money, you can surely buy any house on the market.
There are always exceptions, but it is pretty safe to say that supply and demand are finding equilibrium in most housing markets.
Sounds easier to just outlaw investor from owning houses they don't live in themselves. Seems we can't really stop collusion, only real way to win there is to not make that possible in the first place.
> Then everyone is forced to buy a house to live in, no matter what their situation or desires are.
Great! Now we're talking real solutions that can actually help people :)
> Of course we can stop collusion. What are you even talking about?
Besides laws and regulation (which already exists and clearly isn't enough), what is your suggested solution for stopping collusion?
Price fixing is/was already illegal in the US (if I understand the Sherman Act correctly), yet the largest landlords in the US was found to engage in price-fixing and artificially raising rents. https://www.propublica.org/article/justice-department-sues-l...
I currently don't own, and I can't either, because I don't want to be stuck in one place for too long. If the prices where lower, where I could reliably buy, live for some years then sell again, without a huge amount of hassle, and not costing at least one million to buy some shitty apartment, then that'd be preferably.
And besides just having "real estate investors" slurping up all housing, people could own one house then rent out parts of it, or a collection of people could own their apartment building together, there are many other ways to make housing work that doesn't involve huge companies owning large parts of the market. A little bit of nuance goes a long way.
> people could own one house then rent out parts of it
It's already a thing, called house hacking. Tough luck if you're a couple that wants a complete unit instead of a room in someone else's house.
> a collection of people could own their apartment building together
That's called a co-op or a condo (the difference is a bit fuzzy to me). This still involves ownership and upkeep of an asset, which many people prefer not to do.
> huge companies owning large parts of the market
Make it publicly-owned, for all I care. Or let it be individual landlords. Or forbid a single company from owning more than 5% of the stock in a city. As long as it's market rate and abundant and competitive, it literally does not matter. More houses = cheaper housing.
> yet the largest landlords in the US was found to engage in price-fixing and artificially raising rents
Your own link shows that we know this happened because there was a Justice Department investigation about the practice. How can you say enforcement isn't happening.
35% of Americans rent their homes. And they almost invariably rent from investors. Therefore if more than 35% of homes are owned by investors this drives down rent. If less than 35% are owned by investors rent goes up.
This logic assumes that 35% of Americans WANT to rent their home. Which seems odd to me, if only for financial reasons - why would you pay 1400$ for a 1 bedroom apartment when you could pay 700$ in a mortgage for that same apartment if you could have bought it?
> why would you pay 1400$ for a 1 bedroom apartment when you could pay 700$ in a mortgage for that same apartment if you could have bought it
Because the down payment you put into your purchased home could've been put into the stock market and grown faster than property values (this is historically true).
Because you don't want the headache of home maintenance.
Because in the 21st century, job stability doesn't exist so it's a big risk to buy a home fifteen minutes from your current job that might be an hour from your new job after you get fired so a CEO can get more golden parachutes.
Because you might have to change cities a year from now.
My wife and I rented for a long time because it was better than owning for us.
Agreed. It’s a classic fallacy to compare rent vs mortgage on a numbers to numbers basis. It’s classic example of not accounting for the total cost of ownership.
Maybe not half, but it’s pretty common around here (generic midwestern city) for renting to be more expensive than a comparable mortgage.
Many landlords seem to expect to pay their mortgage and property taxes and maintenance with the rental income, and still net a profit, if r/landlord is to be believed.
The profit is compensation for the risk. The mortgage and property taxes and maintenance are due no matter what - can't find a tenant, tenant doesn't pay, tenant flushes paper towels down the toilets every day etc etc.
If there was no profit there would be no landlords. Some might say that's great. But it would be a world with less flexibility, with fewer choices. Don't like your job and want to move? Split up with your partner and need someplace to live? Moved to a new city and don't know where you want to put down roots yet? At college for 4 years? Don't want to deal with house maintenance? "F** you, buy a house anyway". That's what we'd have if there was no rental housing.
The actual numbers might be more like rent $1400 vs mortgage $1000. After property taxes, insurance, and maintenance there might be $50 left. A handsome 3.5% profit, rising to maybe 6-7% if you include principal paydown. This is hardly a money-printing machine. It's a steady return for taking on some risk.
> Substituting your numbers in for theirs doesn’t change much
You can buy a boat for $10 or rent one for $9. Assuming you really want a boat, would you buy or rent? Do my numbers reflect reality? Do they have a bearing on the choice you make?
It changes a TON whether you pay 2x for renting or whether you pay 1.05x.
Renting has annoyances but it also has flexibility. A flat "more expensive" is staring at one tree and missing the whole forest of tradeoffs. Way more people would choose to spend $50/month for that flexibility versus $700/month.
?? How in the world is it splitting hairs to point out that those numbers don't make sense. It is directly relevant to the question of how many Americans want to rent. You don't need to be like this :(
> renting to be more expensive than a comparable mortgage.
that doesn't sound plausible. May be for a select few properties that are in some unique circumstance (e.g., the seller of the property would sell underpriced because they needed quick sale).
And often, in arguments like these, the rent is the rent, but the mortgage is purely the interest on the loan, and doesn't count the maintenance cost, and doesn't count the deposit required (which has a cost, ala the cost of capital). If you added up all these costs, it exceeds rent.
I fundamentally agree on statement that rents are more expensive than mortgages. As capital is involved and landlords want premium on capital.
Still, things can go either way. And well renting is lot more flexible and less risky. So there is really nothing wrong with that option existing. And many times it is the better pick of the two.
> And well renting is lot more flexible and less risky
Sure if you don't count the cost of risk for the tenant (of needing to move due to job loss, unexpected maintenance bills) then renting is more expensive.
You do know that the posters on r/landlord are often selling services to landlords and thus have a financial incentive to make being a landlord seem attractive. Its a pretty safe assumption that reality isn't that rosy.
> 35% of Americans rent their homes. And they almost invariably rent from investors. Therefore if more than 35% of homes are owned by investors this drives down rent. If less than 35% are owned by investors rent goes up.
This only holds until the percentage owned by the investors becomes a monopolistic chunk. At that point the investors would rather leave some apartments empty rather than see rents go down.
Also "Wipe out a whole boatload of techbros who artificially inflate prices". Nobody is talking about that part of the equation.
Austin was one of the places a lot of tech folks flocked to when everybody was working online. RTO and layoffs have wiped a lot of them out. I'd estimate almost 1/3 of the tech folks that were floating around last year are now in other cities.
> "A key piece of Austin’s strategy has been to encourage the construction of affordable housing."
There is enough data now from around the world that shows that it is important what kind of new housing you build. Building all new luxury units does not lead to lower rents.
Another big factors for Austin is probably the significant decline in population growth in the past few years. But sure, keep spreading blanket statements and misinformation...
I know that there are many "free market" type of dudes on here, so keep the downvotes coming. But he truth is that an unregulated market in housing does not work. Even the "freedom" state Texas has understood this.
"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.
No 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.
You 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.
There is affordable housing all over America. Get it through your head. It’s about nearness to the economic singularity that costs so much not the housing itself.
There isn't affordable housing in areas of opportunity. You can easily find cheap housing if you don't care about proximity to jobs or to good school districts.
> Its wild how the solution to housing costs is really just:
> Build more housing. Keep law and order.
Safety (law and order) increases housing costs, as you say. It's desireable on its own, but it does not solve housing cost. NYC is very safe and very expensive. Crime is way down in most of the US, and housing costs are much higher.
NYC is fairly high density. Has stopped building massive new skyscrapers and has water on two sides. It is also a tier 1 global city culturally AND economically. Its not really reasonable to expect to be affordable.
It's been affordable for many generations, a destination for opportunity for the poorest people, including immigrants. It's only recently that things have become so absurd.
> water on two sides
Do you mean Manhattan, one of the five boroughs? It's an island.
without rent control, what economic incentive do renters have to maintain law and order / invest in local community / be a good neighbor? any investment they make is captured by the landlord. in fact, they are incentivized to maintain their neighborhood in as much disrepair as they can stand, for fear of rent increases.
the little old lady living in a rent controlled apartment is a big part of why rents are high in that area: she was part of what made the community thrive. we would do well to compensate her for this.
But where do you draw the limit on moving the line in?
Do I get to demand affordable housing overlooking Central Park in NYC? Beachside in Malibu?
If you want large incentive for development at scale you need to allow developers to make fat margins or else you wont get too many of them. Yes you can use affordable housing to do that. Eg: in the article they got higher density and exceptions (aka “fat stacks”) for building affordable housing units.
This is all policy tradeoffs at the end of the day. Eg: a tent is not “housing”, why? Because of reasonable policy. Same thing with housing codes etc. All directionally wise/good. But at the same time you can have bad affordable housing policy.
I do think housing is elastic and a cities policies around that elasticity determines if they will thrive or stagnate.
I think that building more housing helps, but a lack of supply is not the only cause of high housing prices. Wealth inequality is also a huge driver, possibly the primary driver. If wealth is allocated in a society in a sufficiently lopsided way, then a small number of people can buy up literally all the assets in the society. Regular people are bidding against a small cadre of ultra-wealthy people who can't possibly spend all their money on consuption, so they use it to buy assets like other people's homes. In the aggregate, increasing the housing supply won't bring down housing prices if wealth inequality is also growing above a certain rate.
This can also be fixed by increasing supply. People buy housing as an investment because they expect it to increase in value. The best way to counteract that is to build and continue building so that doesn't happen.
There's only so much land in the places where people want to live. You can't increase the housing supply enough to stop housing from being an asset in a society where wealth is sufficiently unequally distributed. By virtue of its unique scarcity, land (and therefore housing) will always be an asset, and in a society with increasing wealth inequality, the price of assets will always be going up.
No, it really is not that easy. Check out China, and read up on the Spanish housing crisis. "Just build more" works only sometimes, as demonstrated in those counter-examples. Housing is massive societal and sociological problem with no simple fix. Furthermore, in many circles, another proposal is to cut red tape. You know, housing in the US already is among the least affordable and lowest quality in the developed world. But some people really insist that going back to asbestos and lead pipes would make housing cheaper.
And don't get me wrong, asbestos and lead are wonderful construction materials. Cheap, durable, and high quality. It's just a shame it causes all sorts of health complications when we use them, right? I mean, it would definitely make housing cheaper, but also cause all kinds of health problems.
Your reply conflates “build more” with “build anything, anywhere, with no standards”, which is not what they wrote. China and Spain are not rebuttals to the basic supply point because both involved distorted credit, speculation, and overbuilding in the wrong places or segments, not healthy increases in broadly useful housing supply. The question is not whether supply is the only variable, but whether more homes, in places people actually want to live, puts downward pressure on prices and rents, and it does. That is just basic scarcity: when demand rises faster than housing stock, prices go up.
Keeping crime low matters too, because people pay a premium for safety, and high-crime areas often face weaker investment and worse long-term housing outcomes. And “cutting red tape” does not mean legalising asbestos or lead pipes, which is a straw man. It means reducing delays, exclusionary zoning, parking mandates, and other rules that limit safe housing production and raise costs for no good reason. Housing is absolutely a complex social problem, but complexity does not erase the role of supply. More safe housing plus safer neighbourhoods will not solve everything, but it is still one of the clearest ways to reduce pressure on rents and prices.
Meanwhile, California is also trying to build housing near transit, but Menlo Park wants to preserve the character of downtown by preserving dirty, cracked, flat, surface-level parking lots like it's 1950.
NIMBYism has never been about preserving neighborhood characteristic, or noise and traffic concerns. Menlo Park is not Big Sur. Sure, some concerns are reasonable and should be investigated, but most of the time they're bureaucratic distractions that's been weaponized by people who want to delay progress and protect their investment.
For most Americans, A house is their primary savings account, retirement plan, and probably where they keep majority of their wealth. We don't build new housing in old neighborhoods because it would de-value the investment of too many people. Until we can solve this problem (where people are incentivized to pull the ladder up behind them), we will always have housing shortages. It's just too profitable.
Anecdotally, what we found in Austin was a combination of two factors:
First, awareness of the futility and selfishness of "growth elsewhere" as a solution is much higher in younger people — and by younger, I mean currently under fifty. Generational turnover in Austin had been eating away at the NIMBY majority, and conversations about housing in Austin have long been polarized more by age than by left/right political sentiment. There's a caricature, with a strong vein of truth, of the old Austin leftist who has Mao's little red book on their shelves and thinks apartment buildings are an abomination, and Austinites of that generation are experiencing mortality. At the same time, younger people are adopting more and more urbanist mindsets compared to their parents.
However, I think a much much bigger factor was the influx of younger people, especially young people with experience of larger cities, diluting the votes of the older NIMBYs. Austin has been shaped by growth for half a century, but its "discovery" in the 2000s and very brief status as a darling of coastal hipsters (remember that term?) has had a lasting effect on Austin's popularity and its demographics. It's been twenty years since it was the "it" place for Brooklynites to visit, but in that twenty years, it's had a lot of exposure for young urban dwellers, and some of them discovered they liked it and moved here, bringing their comfort with dense living and their appreciation that growth can bring a lot of positives.
Personally, every homeowner I know in Austin has seen their houses depreciate significantly this decade, and I don't think it changed a single person's mind about Austin's housing policy. People who opposed the reforms are bitter about the outcome, and people who supported the reforms say it sucks for us personally, but it's what we set out to accomplish, and we're glad that it worked.
People see lower property taxes as a silver lining for short-term swings in the market, but I don't know anybody who thinks this is a short-term swing that they can ride out.
Nobody is happy about their property values going down long term. It exposes them to the risk of a big loss if they're forced to sell because of events in their life.
> Austinites of that generation are experiencing mortality.
This is such a funny and novel way of saying "old people in Austin are dying" I just had to point it out.
Also, I like the way this comment is written in general. Felt easy to read for its length, and most importantly the tone stayed fun and personal while still being informative and on topic.
> For most Americans, A house is their primary savings account, retirement plan, and probably where they keep majority of their wealth.
If you allow for increases in density, that house (actually the land beneath it, but still.) becomes more valuable as it's redeveloped. So that American homeowner does benefit, by unlocking the upside of "evil gentrification" (or actually, density increase).
That can only happen if the higher density coincides with equal economic growth in the neighborhood. Otherwise, the higher density could result in a negative home valuation trend.
Given the above uncertainty, and higher density could result in more traffic, noise, crime, nymbys are likely taking the correction position for wealth preservation and quality of life.
"Traffic" doesn't come from higher density, it comes from zoning bans on mixed-use neighborhoods which force people to drive everywhere. The "crime" argument is especially silly: why assume that higher density only ever attracts criminals? Usually, having more people around is a positive.
You can assume higher density has "more crime" because the increase in people means if you want to keep the same absolute rate of crimes (which is the only thing people ever notice--every violent or sexual crime will be repeated in the news), you have to correspondingly increase the efficiency of crime-fighting, and American police aren't up to the task, even if they were motivated to do so.
A paper came out about this recently: The City as an Anti-
Growth Machine.
> Logan and Molotch's “urban growth machine” remains foundational in urban theory, describing how coalitions of landowners, developers, and politicians promote urban growth to raise land values. This paper argues that under financialized capitalism, the dynamics have inverted: asset appreciation now outweighs productive investment, and urban land is increasingly treated as a speculative asset.
I'm not sure why new housing devalues old housing. In my mind, higher density generally makes an area more desirable (e.g. because higher density enables more jobs, better infrastructure) and raises the value. Imagine as an extreme example and existing house in the middle of nowhere around which a metropolis is developed. Surely the value of the house, or at least the land it is built on, goes up, even though it loses its "cabin in the woods" appeal.
You think if there were modern highrises in Menlo Park a tiny 2BR shack next door would still sell for $2M? It’s a supply and demand issue, nothing more.
What is your mental model for this then? If the "2BR shack" can be built from scratch for 300k, and the value for the lot + shack is $3M, then the land value is $2.7M. Most expensive real estate is land value, not actual structure value.
I see what you're saying, my point is that the principle thing driving it's value isn't the land nor the shack, it's the regulatory framework of the area.
Yes, it would go way, way, way up because if there is a high rise next door someone wants to knock down the shack and put up another high rise, a commercial building, etc.
When regulations are reduced to allow more density, the value of the land goes up because its productivity increases. The land can do more now, e.g. hold 10 apartments vs 1 house. The same land generates more rent so developers are willing to pay more for that land.
Meanwhile, the value of housing units goes down due to increased competition among sellers/landlords.
Consider two zoning changes.
1) You are a homeowner and more units are allowed on your parcel, e.g. single-family -> duplex. That increases your land value.
2) You are a homeowner and there is more density around you, but not on your parcel, e.g. apartments are allowed nearby but not on your street. Your land value does not increase. Your home value decreases due to increased competition. (Of course, there may be long term effects like the increased density actually leading to economic windfalls in the area, increasing its desirability, and then increasing your home value.)
it's not that density per se drives down existing costs, but density almost always brings more housing stock to the market (unless they are simultanously tearing down housing elsewhere) and housing stock drives down the cost of housing, which is the point of the original article.
So if we take it as an assumption that density increases housing stock, there is lots of evidence that density drives down prices of existing land/home values.
Density is not going to drive down cost for the same kind of housing. A SFH is not the same as a smaller home on a denser plot, much less an apartment block in a high rise. So the SFH owner who pursues increased density does indeed benefit.
The article only talks about rent, not price of housing, which I think is an important data point.
Homeowners don't want housing prices to fall. Ever. They don't care about rent prices (at least, not directly). But renters care about both — obviously lower rent prices are good, but many want to be able to enter the housing market but it's prohibitively expensive.
Perhaps falling rent prices has a similar effect on home prices — the value of buying a home for the purposes of renting becomes less desirable due to lower rental revenue, so prices fall. Not sure, the macroeconomics of housing never made sense to me because it's never as simple as pure supply and demand.
As an example, my wife and I finally decided to buy a house in a fast-growing CA suburb (not in Bay Area). The house was constructed in 2021 and sold for $611k. Plenty of renovations have been done on the house, we'd estimate around $20k+ worth of renovations, and the neighborhood and surrounding area has only grown since then (more parks, housing, great schools, stores etc).
The house was listed for sale at $600k; even then we were able to underbid and get our offer accepted. Inspections turned out clean, just minor cosmetic issues.
I don't keep an eye on the rental market but we've lived at two different rental properties and both of those places went up in rent once each, so I can only assume that rent is going up everywhere in this area.
Point is, rent and real estate don't always go in lock step.
I think there are a big range of opinions people have. There are some hardcore housing resisters whose opinions get a lot of sway because of the way processes work (public consultations, activism, etc). Lots of people are a bit sceptical because of pretty legitimate reasons – noise, traffic, disruption, aesthetics.
I think there probably are balances where people could generally be happier with new construction and that opinion could be clear enough to overrule those who would never be happy with it. Things like:
- ways of having locals vote on new development with small enough constituencies that they can be paid off (ie some of the gains that would have gone to developers or other positive externalities can be captured by those who are more effected) with lower taxes or new roads or parks or whatever
- making residents vote instead of having consultations will lead to less bias in favour of the most obnoxious
- allowing apartment blocks to vote to accept offers of redevelopment (eg you get a newer apartment; more apartments are added to the block and sold to fund the redevelopment)
- having architectural standards that locals are happy with for new buildings
- allow streets to vote to upzone themselves (I don’t love this as it’s basically prisoners dilemma – if your street does it, land value increases and you gain; if every street does it land value only increases a bit but now you are upzoned)
I basically think that there are developments that can be broadly appealing and we are in a bad local minimum in lots of places of having bigger governments trying to push development on unwilling smaller governments/groups
Fundamentally as a society we need to stop treating housing as an investment. It is and should be a utility.
Suring property prices is a relatively new phenomenon (as in, post-WW2). The true origins of NIMBYism, at least in the US, is (you guessed it) racism. Long before segregation ended, and long after, there was economic segregation. Redlining [1], HOAs [2], the post-WW2 GI Bill [3], where highways were built [4][5], etc.
In fact this is a good rule of thumb: if you're ever confused why something is the way it is in the US, your first guess should pretty much always be "because racism".
Case in point: my parents. Built a house in 1988 and they still live there. Two people in 3500 square feet. Four bathrooms and five bedrooms. Meanwhile, you need a family income of 3x the median to rent a townhouse 1/3rd the size nearby.
This is beyond ridiculous and it’s totally unsustainable.
Hate to be the bearer of bad news here, but the boomers will never die. Gen X will become the new boomers, and then the millennials after them. Individual people die, but interests stay the same.
There’s a lot of truth here, but two countervailing points: first younger generations own homes than Boomers at equivalent ages; second Boomers are particularly blind to the effects of zoning and strongly oppose development due to see firsthand the effects of 1950s urban redevelopment. They also love cars.
Us younger generations will have seen firsthand the negative effects of zoning, we do not possess a visceral opposition to development, and there is much greater appreciation of walkable neighborhoods.
> If NIMBYs were primary motivated by making money the prudent thing to do would be to support unrestricted zoning and then develop or sell the lot.
That is highly dependent on what exactly is being built next to your home. Sure, if it's more luxury housing then it'll probably drive the value of your home up. If it's low-income housing then it probably won't. And what we need is more of the latter rather than the former.
> you can take out loans against the value of the equity but this isn’t particularly common.
It's because it's an investment, you're going to get the return once you finally sell your home. Only in a pinch if someone needs a large amount of money to start a business or pay for an emergency will they mortgage their house.
> And what we need is more of the latter rather than the former.
You just need to wait. The luxury housing that gets built today becomes low-income housing as it ages. There's no short-circuiting that process the way the incentives are set up, but you can drive down prices across the board by building more, even more luxury housing.
>For most Americans, A house is their primary savings account
This is true for California, where people (foolishly) rely on their home value as their retirement plan, which further incentivizes NIMBYism.
But in places like Texas (and other areas with affordable housing), the house is just treated as something you pay off to have a low housing cost in retirement. And your investments are your retirement+savings account.
I wasn’t trying to say one was better or not, just different. Californians wrap up a large amount of their retirement savings in their houses though, so keeping those home prices high is important to them and that’s a reason for stalling development.
I think Californians do, a lot of time, retire with a higher net worth. But most of them do that because they’re more relatively house-poor during their lives - they take out larger mortgages, and save more into their net worth.
As opposed to Texans, who have higher disposable income since they have smaller house payments. It’s less incentive to save so they may spend more.
So that’s a partial advantage to California - the expensive homes force a higher savings rate, naturally.
But, at retirement age, a lot of their net worth is tied up in their home. So to unlock a lot of those savings they need to move to a lower cost of living state like Arizona, Nevada, Florida, etc.
While the Texans can just stay in their paid-off house.
So yeah it’s just different.
Texans are just paying off their home throughout their life and staying in it. They have larger disposable income to go towards other stuff (kids, lifestyle) while Californians gotta pay that mortgage
It's not that they're "intuitively better" it's that prior generations of them have passes less insane state and local law and they're not at the tail end of a ~20yr industry boom so "pay down my house and cash out to somewhere cheaper" doesn't make sense as a retirement strategy for as many of them.
To be fair it is not the city/elected officials who wants to retain the parking lots. The downtown redevelopment would probably make the city a lot of money.
It is the businesses around downtown who are pushing the save downtown campaign. I imagine the businesses contribute a fair chunk of revenue to the city now and have some influence .
Relative to say parts of Redwood City, or Palo Alto. Menlo park has a fair amount of student-ish 4 Unit lots, so it not all zoned SFU.
TBF a lot of the complaints are coming from businesses that are _probably_ renting. There is absolutely the chance that their business will go under due to construction disruptions before they can benefit from the increased foot traffic once the development is complete.
And, of course, once the development is complete, and the value of their land goes up, so too does their rent....
Menlo Park today has free and ample parking downtown. RWC is paid parking anywhere within few blocks of downtown, all the garages are paid, the garage on Jefferson Av charges more on Sundays. Same thing in San Mateo downtown.
To be fair, parking structures always look and feel pretty distopian.
I like the approach of making downtowns walkable and having a bit of parking at the periphery of downtown, along with good public transit. Encourages people to use public transit to get to town in the first place. Downtown residents can use transit or a zipcar or equivalent when the need to get out of town, instead of devoting a ton of space downtown for storing their cars.
Not sure if that approach is really practical, but if it can be made to work it is much nicer.
Well, in Menlo Park they're just flat surface parking lots, not even multi-story structures. The planned development is multi-story housing with parking underneath.
To be fair, I am boycotting the (similar) underground garage over at Springline because they're clearly made only for people in Range Rovers or whatever. They have those AWFUL ticket machines, set too far back (to avoid getting hit) and too high to access from a normal car.
The global capital of technology has absolute horrid infrastructure and is not on the forefront of any municipal technologies.
There's a big disconnect from people building new projects and local governance, and it's growing. When tech companies started even providing buses for their employees, because local government is too fractured and incapable of running needed bus routes, and can not coordinate across county and city borders, local activists were extremely upset that tech workers were not driving their personal cars and instead using environments-saving and traffic-reducing transit.
Super easy unless you have moved recently, then you don't get the bill and end up years later in collections for the original amount plus a million late fees added on.
Nah it arrives electronically to kivra, which is like email except you log in with your social security number and it's only for "official business" like invoices and whatnot.
Unfortunately here in the US we are pathologically incompetent.
One day we will attempt to roll out such a system. We'll pay McKinsey billions to develop and operate it, set no targets, and they will take the money and disappear for 10 years, and then deliver some unusable website developed by one offshore developer.
That sounds great! In the US the phrase you used "mailed to my sthlm address" would never mean anything other than physically sending a paper bill to your house.
Yeah I phrased that wrong. I wanted to emphasize that I don't live in Norway. I found it extra impressive that it worked so seamlessly even with a foreign car. Oh well.
The reasons why the Bay Area is the global capital of technology are absolutely totally unrelated to the quality of infrastructure or the policies of local government there.
It’s mainly due to the state of US technological advancement decades ago when the whole thing got started, the general US-level business-friendly environment, and the presence of an extremely prestigious (especially in science and tech fields) university nearby.
The specific reason is that William Shockley's mother lived in Palo Alto. Stanford gets the credit but in reality it had nothing to do with the decision.
I would bill by ticket machine too if it was my job to collect money on the parking. I’m guessing that the amount of people who never pay is much higher than zero so it really only makes sense when you have such high throughput that the slowdown is detrimental (such as the Bay bridge).
I park on the street for free. (The lot is also free in monetary cost, for the short windows I'd park there, but the hassle is larger than the hassle of finding street parking).
> They have those AWFUL ticket machines, set too far back (to avoid getting hit) and too high to access from a normal car.
Are you sure it's the ticket machines? Around here, the ticket machines have stayed the same, but it's now impossible to use them without stopping the car and getting out, because car manufacturers have decided I need eight inches of empty space between myself and the side of the car.
That eight inches is called "side impact protection" and, while it sucks to not be able to comfortably rest your arm on the window sill, it is pretty important to have in the event of an impact to the side.
I drive a 90s Miata. Trust me, I hate the SUV trend as much as anyone else, and I also recognize that car design from the 90s is not exactly the pinnacle of crash safety.
> To be fair, parking structures always look and feel pretty distopian.
What a lot of the new buildings in Austin are doing is putting an attached garage directly behind a 4 + 1 mixed use development - the street-facing facade is the apartments and shops, and the garage is directly behind (and usually attached) to the apartments. You basically never see them.
Babies throw tantrums, your job as a parent is to not give in to their demands. But California has a weakened state government due to the governor's will-he-wont-he bid for higher office some time between now and 2092, he's afraid to make waves. If it were me I'd say: you need more housing. And if the fine people of Menlo Park say no, then let them maintain El Camino Real themselves. A home depot employee will be by to unlock the shovel cage for you shortly.
Menlo Park isn't comparable to Austin though - Austin's equivalent of Menlo Park would be a country club CDP in the Austin Hills like Rob Roy.
A better comparison would be ATX against San Jose.
Just like how the "rich" residents of Santa Clara county know that you want to live in Campbell, Los Gatos, Menlo Park, Los Altos, Loyola, etc, similarly rich Texans and Austinites live in the Hills.
The reality is the residents of Menlo Park and Rob Roy don't want your type, and in a lot of cases tend to be the same people as there aren't many places left where you can trail run, bike, eat Michelin star ramen, and not pay income tax.
Just because we make good money in tech, it doesn't make us "them". I highly recommend reading the works of Pierre Bourdieu with regards to cultural capital.
Menlo Park was never a "middle class" town. The 101 was always the (literal) redline.
The median household income is $210K [0] and it's the same demographic, unlike historically lower middle class but now upper middle class San Mateo [1].
A Menlo Park home address that is on the correct side of the 101 opens the same doors in the Bay that a Bel Air address does in Los Angeles or an Austin Hills address does in Austin.
Rich doesn't equal conspicuous, especially in the Bay Area - "Wealth is quiet, rich is loud, poor is flashy"
Yep! That's what I meant - Rob Roy, Westlake Hills, Barton Creek around the country clubs, and Lost Creek. Those are the equivalents of much of Menlo Park and Atherton, and I know of a number of people who lived in Menlo+Atherton and moved to those areas of Austin in order to front-run taxes in the run-up of some significant exits.
280 to El Camino is "oldish rich" (made their millions in the 1980s-2000s), the El Camino to 101 is "new rich" (made their millions in the 2000s-2010s), and 101 to Meta used to be a Samoan ghetto (literally, redlining was legal until the 60s and unofficially the norm until the 90s) until they were gentrified out.
The old money (rich before tech) to the West of 280 in Woodside and Portola Valley.
I think this is a bunch of retrospective justification when the truth is that home-owners vote against supply expansion measures that may decreases their home value (their main investment).
Just like how people pretend "I'm actually super concerned about emergency vehicles" when it comes to replacing a car lane with a bus/bike lane. It sounds better than admitting they don't want to be inconvenienced, they'd rather have an extra car lane than someone else get a bus/bike lane, etc. So the hand waving begins.
Austin is unique even in Texas for its aggressive construction boom + decreased rent, so it's not even a Texas thing.
> In California people are very scared of poor people because they tend to commit more crime and the justice system refuses to prosecute and imprision them, especially if they are criminally insane.
Funny to read this when it’s common knowledge the rich commit so much tax evasion the IRS doesn’t bother investigating, and tech billionaires like Thiel are regularly abusing hard drugs and spewing unhinged theories about the end times and an AI god. You can just say you don’t like poor people. You don’t have to use some statistical fallacy that supports your confirmation bias.
The reality is that the visibility of criminal acts is inversely correlated with income. Why would a rich criminal spray paint graffiti on a building when they’re making so much money off white collar crime that they can just buy it and do whatever they want?
That’s not even getting into all of the things that should be crimes but aren’t, because the ultra wealthy and their megacorps can legally bribe politicians to their hearts content. Or the child sex trafficking. Epstein’s buddies weren’t living rough.
What you pointed out doesn’t change the argument. That IS a main driver for NIMBYism in wealthy areas, even if they’re wrong or misguided, even if it’s just false perception. Don’t really know how doing some whataboutism will change that. I think most people would likely choose to live next to a tax avoider over a violent criminal?
Performative ignorance is when you dispute something supported by tons of empirical evidence with a few anecdotes and whatever you just made up and expect me to spend time refuting it. It's the same technique flat earthers and young earth creationists use.
I think the issue is that we have under built so much for so long, that it often feels futile to build more. NYC can feel like this, because due to zoning and general difficulties in building, all that seems to happen is a new building goes up and drives up rents. But if we built 20x more of those and sated demand, we would. On a micro level though, it can appear that "new building makes rents go up."
And this pattern repeats across the US. Add in the fact that people want to freeze the area they moved to in time (like suburbs refusing to increase density, even urban yet car reliant neighborhoods panicking if a single parking space is removed: https://hudsoncountyview.com/outraged-jersey-city-residents-...) and we get constant blockers to housing supply growth we so desparately need.
Its been frustrating watching the half baked measures to make housing "more affordable" by making mortgages cheaper when really they need to stimulate the supply side. It seems like an easy political win IMHO as long as you can sell it up front- stimulate GDP by juicing house building, and everyone gets cheaper housing. Just keep it under control lest you end up in a China type situation.
I'm with you, but many people still question this. Here's a recent pre-print paper that was in the news arguing that inequality, not lack of supply, is the real source of housing affordability: https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/95trz_v1
Are the comments in the thread with us right now? At best, from what I’ve seen, this is a strawman against the people that argue that building housing is not the only thing that should be done regarding housing. I’ve seen no comments that claim we shouldn’t build housing to alleviate the housing crisis.
Most comments that I see are about how from a policy perspective it’s more complicated. There’s no single “build more homes” magic wand that works for every market. And in some markets there are real people with real issues who could be helped by temporary policies that make landlording less profitable on the margins while people figure out how to best “build more homes” for that market.
I think it's not that people question free market dynamics, it's that they question a market is free in the first place.
For example, healthcare in the US is basically exempt from typical free market dynamics like supply and demand because of how the market works. Consumers don't choose, everyone has a moat and parents, and costs are often subsidized.
100%. I see more and more young people appreciating Carlin’s “it’s a big club and you ain’t in it” quote because they have come to terms with the rigged game. I think the GFC was the starkest exemplar of this.
There was an article on HN front page a few months ago which stated(paraphrased) "building more housing to reduce prices is a right wing ideology that doesn't match reality" or some such. I'll reply here if I find it.
hn.algolia.com is a great search interface. I searched “housing” and top posts in the past year and didn’t see anything related to your quote on the first two pages. Maybe I need to search deeper.
Housing and immigration are two areas where people just can't accept basic economics. You can see some olympic level mental gymnastics routines all over this comments section.
They are often happily blinded by ideology. Try to tell someone in Britain that wages have been seriously suppressed due to mass immigration and most of them will look at you like you’re stupid.
Yes, supply of workers and demand for houses. So not only is mass immigration cutting wages, it's increasing the cost of living. British people are being squeezed between stationary salaries, rampant inflation, insane taxes and huge cost of living increases.
Eh, people really need to be questioning econ 101 more often.
It's built upon untrue assumptions
- infinite buyers / sellers
- perfect information
- no switching / transaction costs
---
The article itself has 3 different year ranges provided so I'm not sure how you can use it as evidence. Plus overall the rent is still up by a lot since 93% - 4% is still at least 80%.
- Rents increase by 93% from 2010 to 2019
- Housing increase from 2015 to 2024 (this overlaps with when rents increased ...)
- the main input (land) is also an output, so when the price of the output goes up, so does the value of the input.
- economies of scale don't really work, due to the impracticality of transporting the good (houses) and fitting the good inside a machine (in house "factories", normal workers go inside the house and work on it by hand; not a lot changes compared to traditional construction)
- more supply in one area increases the value (and therefore demand) in that area, so it's not actually clear-cut whether building more would reduce the price more than it increases it, at first glance.
Ah yes, that 150 year old meme reflexively copy-pasta'd by internet commenters since the days of usenet to refute basic concepts like supply and demand.
"Lol economists are dumb they think humans are robots!"
No they don't. Sorry, we won't be throwing away an entire field of human endeavor based on a straw man caricature that isn't true.
We don't call physicists dumb and throw out their ideas because the real world isn't a perfect vacuum either. They know this, don't be silly.
The movement of satellites is not modeled using distance = speed * time. It would do well to consider if econ 101 is an accurate way to model the world since for other domains the 101 course is not.
Yet the overwhelming factor in modeling the movement of those satellites is still distance = speed * time.
The existence of nuance and external factors don't negate the original principle.
The equivalent to arguments made by 'economics deniers' in this thread would be if you argued: the satellite moving at 7.8 km/s actually causes the earth to spin 8 km/s faster, so trying to make the satellite move faster makes it go slower! Applying acceleration doesn't help!
No. Making the satellite move faster generally makes it move faster. Building more housing generally makes it cheaper.
Let's not do the HN thing and get lost in pedantry.
> The existence of nuance and external factors don't negate the original principle.
Eh, ok throwing out all of physics 101 is a little strong. But you still don't use the original formulas you learned to do actual analysis. So using the basic models from econ 101 to do analysis can lead you to incorrect answers (but also correct ones; from a False premise you can imply both True and False; see "Material Implication" [1]).
So sure on a forum like HN it can be appropriate to use basic econ 101 logic but when somebody is trying to be an expert or write an article for thousands+ people you should really question why they're only using 101 logic.
> Let's not do the HN thing and get lost in pedantry.
Lets actually do the not HN thing and read the article.
There's too little rigor in the article to support the argument in the title. The articles _own numbers_ are that after building 120k housing units the rent went up 85% (4% decrease after 96% increase). Just looking causally at this the only data in the article supports more housing = more rent; the article is only casual observations so little reason to do anything else ...
There's loads of other inefficiencies as well. Moving is a huge hurdle. It's difficult to find housing that meets dozens of conditions, and even then you don't respond to supply + demand imagined equilibrium, you pay more or pay less to live near friends or family. It's something you only do a handful of times in your whole life. Trying to use the same analysis as for buying a can of beans is absurd. You might need to take econ 201 before you understand why econ 101 is wrong about housing.
Prices in massively inefficient markets do not follow the supply + demand equilibrium. Beer is not an inefficient market. You're doing the absurd comparison.
It's more correct to say supply and demand still drive the overall average, but in a high-friction market of unique items, every single case is still a unique case. It's not like moving wheat bushels or RAM chips. When they sell oil, they mix up all the oil from different producers in the same reservoir, in the same tanks. Electricity travels in the same wires. Housing is nothing like that.
Housing doesn't follow economic principles that only apply to homogeneous bulk products, that's the point. Electricity is almost perfectly homogeneous. Then you have things like wheat and bread, which vary in quality but are close substitutes. Housing's at the complete opposite end of the spectrum. No two units are alike and they only trade every few years at best.
Not really, it used to be the case that a full third of Americans moved every year. Obviously life is more complicated than econ 101, but it's also obvious that a current undersupply of housing is one of, if not the primary, drivers of home pricing. Admittedly other factors like the governments interference in the home loan space have also had large effects on the market over the last century.
So, if instead of installing a bunch of apps, setting up search filters, and refreshing browser tabs on my phone ever 15-30 minutes, then the instant something meets my parameters I immediately leave work and, if possible, make a deposit on a new place, I open an app and find 5000 places meeting my requirements, meet them when I'm not working and on my time, and tell them I like a different one better so I'll hold off before making a decision, makes no difference on the price?
I don't think this is simple econ 101. Yes with more houses we should expect lower prices, but also with high prices we should expect more houses produced. All that is econ 101, but that second econ 101 prediction isn't happening. I would guess that some will chalk it up to vaguely (though not necessarily wrong) jerks/idiots blocking it. Whether it's because nimbyers want to keep their home values (what we should expect from econ) or it's broken city politics, there are lots of things going on here. It's more complicated.
They also teach you about elasticity in econ 101. It's foolish and anti-intellectual to insist that the housing market has only two factors, while simultaneously condescending about your understanding of economics shows that you really don't understand economics, it's more about your ego.
> It's foolish and anti-intellectual to insist that the housing market has only two factors
Elasticitiy moderates the effect. It doesn't reverse it. Increasing housing supply decreases housing costs. A lot of people are venally or ideologically motivated against accepting this. Our housing crisis is a political choice. (Note: I'm a homeowner.)
This reminds of a fun fact I remember learning in university.
Elasticity is the relationship between demand and supply, and there are actually very rare instances where it can be negative (where demand increases with price).
Inelastic demand is when a good is demanded so much, that an increase in price has little affect on the total quantity (people still demand it, think like addictive substances)
So a perfectly inelastic product would be a straight line where any amount is demanded at any price.
So having the curve keep going it would get a positive slope, where higher price makes demand go up.
If I remember the example I was given was food during a famine. Supply is already low, but an additional pressure on price is the known shortage. The idea being that as the price goes up people see it as harder to get.
It’s been so long since I studied the subject so I might have gotten some things wrong here.
The terminology is actually split; sometimes they're called Giffen goods and sometimes they're called Veblen goods.
The two types have identical behavior, so there's no good reason to have two different names, but in concept Giffen goods are something poor people buy, while Veblen goods are something rich people buy.
(There is a difference if you're willing to look at responses to changes other than a change in the price of a good: if you give a household more money, it will increase consumption of Veblen goods, but decrease consumption of Giffen goods.)
The urban orthodoxy is around demand rationing. Supply-side arguments are incredibly new. The evidence cuts in one direction. (Unless we want a hukou system.)
I live in Austin.
In the 1980s, there was a building boom that collapsed.
Austin had 23%(!) apartment vacancy in 1990 after a collapse that started in 1985.
It wasn't until about 1993 that prices returned to 1985 nominal values.
At the time it wasn't code changes that caused this but excessive lending by Savings and Loan banks. You can research the S&L crisis that required a federal bail out. This cause massive bankruptcy and the creation of an entity all the Resolution Trust Corporation to sell all this near worthless property for pennies on the dollar. This affected all of Texas and also Louisiana and Arizona.
For Austin this was great as a whole as rents were ridiculously cheap for 10-15 years and it was an economic and cultural catalyst, drawing in hordes of young people from around the country.
No it's not. It's 2 cherry picked data points with a sample size of 1 of a complex system with multiple confounding factors such as a pandemic
You can look at other neighborhoods such as palms in Los Angeles, which has the most aggressive housing build out in all of California. Median rent has increased - sometimes more housing can create more demand
Did rents in Palms go up because they built housing or because it's a great location in a city with increasing rent almost everywhere?
Or in other words, is there any econometric evidence that building housing increased rents in Palms, or could we be confusing correlation with causation?
Exactly. You can't just look at two data points in a system with hundreds of confounding variables, many of them unquantifiable and say "aha! This simple linear equation of supply and demand, that they teach in middle school, is correct!"
The problem isn’t the powers that be. A lot of regular homeowners fight new developments tooth and nail. And many blue states unfortunately give them a lot of tools to do so.
People want to blame the 1% for massive wealth ineqality, but when it comes to unaffordable housing, a basic necessity of life, the villain is actually about 30% of the population that is rich enough to own homes, act like rentiers, and block access to neighborhoods and opportunities.
The greatest inequality difference is that between those with housing assets and those without. Yes the 1% are a problem but they are not the reason that young people can no longer afford housing without generational wealth, that's all due to the seemingly normal guy that's enforcing a class system based on home ownership versus non-ownership.
I think the majority of the electorate very much blame the people you're talking about. Who do you think progressives and MAGA refer to when talking about neoliberals? They're talking about the corporate class; those that care more about money but willing to play up useless culture war issues that impact small amounts of people.
> A lot of regular homeowners fight new developments tooth and nail.
In a system where those with more capitol have more power, homeowners are the powers that be. They're more likely to vote and have more money for discretionary spending - like donating to politicians.
I'm not blaming individual homeowners, there are very strong incentives for treating homes like retirement investments. It's an issue of policy, but we do have to address that it is also causing rent to rise and contributing to the homelessness crisis.
Don’t know why this is being downvoted, that’s exactly right. One needs only to attend a local city meeting about any smallest step towards more development to see how the voters think.
It is more complicated than that. A few years back when my youngest entered 1st grade, I attended some meetings where the superintendent talked about school expansions in the pipeline due to confirmed property development projects.
Namely, when new housing is added, there are infrastructure considerations and corresponding expenses that translate to higher taxes. Civil planners have formulas for how much the student population will grow based on the housing density/type.
Schools built on parcels based on 1970's population now have to expand to fit more students or the township has to find and acquire new land to build a new school.
That requires raising taxes for bonds. A new school is several million dollars and then hiring staff. NJ has a legal limit of 25:1 in elementary. Add 100 students and you add at least 4 teachers that have to be supported by taxpayers. Expand the lunchroom, build a new gym, purchase new computers, all the ways up the chain for the next 12 years.
If you ever look at your municipal tax bill, you will find that education is going to be the biggest expense by far.
On top of that, roads may need to be widened. New roads have to be built and maintained. Municipal staff may need to increase.
Some services may actually benefit from economies of scale (waste collection). Most will not.
Imagine you bought a house in 1970 (i.e. my development) and you were paying $1000 annual property taxes. Now your property taxes are $12000 because of the increased spend on infrastructure and increased assessed value. You're a retiree and you've paid taxes for 2 or 3 generations of students. You live on a fixed income and your property taxes are a higher and higher proportion of your income. What do you do? Mortgage the house to pay taxes to fund more growth?
The problem is exacerbated because obviously people want to go where the good schools are, where it's low crime, good infra, easy access to transportation. That drives demand and puts pressure on services while also raising taxes to pay to fund municipal bonds for growth.
End of the day, my personal belief is that housing is a right. But I can also see why middle class folks, retirees end up pushing back when they get the bill in the form of increased property taxes. I've lived in my house 10 years now and my taxes have gone up ~$3500 in that time. Every school in the township had to expand to meet population growth with the additional units. Sure, my home value went up as well, but I can't cash that out. I can't imagine how it feels for retirees that are living in a family home here.
This is a really well-thought out comment, and I agree with just about everything in it. One comment I'd like to call out for additional consideration is the comment on retirees being priced out due to rising property taxes.
In my experience, most retirees have more rooms/land than they can make productive use of. I feel that there should be some pressure for them to sell that property to families who can use it more productively. That's the stick, but I feel there needs to be a carrot, where builders are constructing homes that these retirees will be drawn to. There are retirement communities in the southern US like "The Villages" https://www.thevillages.com/, but as the population here ages, we need to build these everywhere so retirees can move into the communities that meet their needs without being forced to leave their cities.
> I feel that there should be some pressure for them to sell that property to families who can use it more productively.
I agree to extents. One lives in NY/NJ/CT because this is a big finance and pharma hub and it makes sense to live here while one works and eventually leave when that resource is no longer necessary.
But there's nuance here, too: families. My wife's side is a big Italian family. Everyone's here. What do you do if your grand kids are all here? How do you support your adult kids and help them achieve financial security? Or leave and secure your own? Neither is an easy choice.
> There are retirement communities...
There are here as well. The reason they work here, as far as I understand it, is that they count towards "affordable housing" units that are mandated by state law here in NJ. But I put that in quotes because these units in 55+ communities are often honestly still quite expensive, especially if you've already paid off your mortgage decades ago.
The real issue seems to be the top-heavy tax system that forces local governments to rely on property taxes. A local income tax would make them more capable of building and maintaining infrastructure, but that would require lowering taxes at higher levels. (Income taxes are superior to wealth taxes in the sense that income tends to correlate better with the ability to pay tax.)
If the demand for housing is high, zoning fees can also be used to make developers pay for the infrastructure upfront. If done properly, their impact on housing costs should be minimal, as they mostly extract some of the added value created by the zoning from the landowner.
> If the demand for housing is high, zoning fees can also be used to make developers pay for the infrastructure upfront...
It's not that simple because these often end up as legal battles and in some cases, there are laws already on the books at the state and municipal level that would have to be changed.
The developer for sure does not want to build a school and even if they build the school, they are not going to be paying for the teachers that are going to need to support the increased student body for every decade into the future; that's on the taxpayers.
The underlying assumption is that laws will be changed when necessary. If it's not possible to do that, most issues probably can't be fixed.
More fundamentally, this is related to the principle of subsidiarity that is occasionally popular in the EU. Everything the government does should be done by the lowest level that can reasonably do it. And to enable that, local and state governments should have sufficiently wide tax bases.
Laws are voted on by the people. And if the municipal elections are scoped to current residents, they will vote to not expand in almost every case.
At the state level, we have housing laws that mandate ratios of affordable housing. Many townships faught this in court (and lost) because schools and infrastructure are capital projects. Bonds are secured today against some future tax base.
Don't forget that developers and investors are voters too (and lobbyists) who are going to vote against the municipalities.
My point: it is a nuanced situation and not as simple as "Got mine FU" or "just build more". Build where? How do you pay for it fairly?
People often vote to support new housing, as long as the entire system works reasonably well.
My solution was to widen the tax base to make the system work better.
The incentives around property taxes do not support significant new construction. If housing becomes more affordable, tax revenue per capita goes down, while local government spending stays the same or increases. Local governments should therefore not rely too much on property taxes.
Income taxes, on the other hand, are good. You are taxing things you want to grow, and you get more tax revenue when your policies are good to the people. Local governments might want to collect more income taxes and less property taxes.
When the demand for housing is high, zoning creates significant windfall to the landowner. Some of this windfall can be taxed to support infrastructure construction.
Unfortunately, municipal policies here in the US rarely has an effect on income. Income is by and large affected by state and national level policies. Very few people work where they live so municipal income taxes do not make sense to me.
It's a real issue, but the solution is probably just to have more of these decisions at the metro area or state level. Otherwise you just get specific cities or neighborhoods that say 'no' to housing, and that causes severe economic/financial problems (see: coastal California).
Housing growth is necessary, but it should also be spread out.
I can't answer for different states and municipalities, but I know about mine and NJ based on how we had to expand every school in the district over the last 10 years.
These are big capital expenses. My property taxes have never gone down, even as my township has expanded.
Part of this is that taxes are calculated on assessed value. Where I'm at, assessed value is a combination of lot size + structural improvement. Tax bill is assessed value * rate. Assessments have never gone down. The more people want to move here, the more values go up, the more capital projects need to be undertaken before new tax payers are contributing. It may take years to build a new development, but the multi-million dollar budget to expand the school and staff up teachers has to happen in tandem, before the new tax base exists.
My lot is from the 70's. It's huge. New lots are significantly smaller. Townhouses and apartments are very dense. New development does not yield savings in taxes in practice unless it is commercial development.
A big piece of farmland contributes taxes, but requires little in services. Convert that 50 acres into 50 units and now you need much more services and infrastructure compared to the 50 acre farm.
You underestimate just how much schools and teachers cost. Those 50 units might add 50-100 students. Capital projects start even before the units finish to prevent overcrowded schools. Contracts are signed for garbage and snow removal if 5 of those units are occupied or 50.
- many new building being very ugly (side note: ugly buildings no matter how green get torn down and are this not as green as building that are beautiful)
- increasing density bringing increased crime
- increased density actually turning out to be less efficient on a per capita tax basis (this is always wild to me, cities should be spending much less per capita than rural areas but arent)
They are the ones who show up at local political fundraising galas and constantly report local issues influencing municipal/state priorities.
Although it's not just NIMBY. There's a million rules about building housing and developing land from zoning, environmental, indigenous, or social ends. Which are arguably luxury self-benefiting priorities for people who already own houses. Plus all the activists who think the government can both make development extremely expensive via endless rules while affording to fund mass government housing at the same time.
Well, it's easy! Just get the majority of voters to hate each other enough that it's a moral boundary to vote together on any law, effectively limiting any meaningful change.
How do you address the comment you replied to, though? Are you suggesting that in a population with, say, 300,000,000 people, it is okay for 150,000,001 to vote to oppress the remaining 149,999,999?
In any case, in America we often treat democracy as rule by the plurality anyway, it is often not a majority.
After a few decades in California, I'm pretty sure there are no "people in power".
There are a lot of people with some power, which they use as they see fit. It all adds up to marginal and pseudo-random changes, as the state drifts toward... wherever it's going.
Trump explicitly said he wants to keep prices high [0]. This is the problem with a culture that views housing not as a need or a home, but as an investment. Pathological.
I just hope that people remember this is just one factor affecting quality of life and making a city work.
"Density at all costs" ignores a huge set of tradeoffs that are equally as damaging to a city. Things such as urban form, street experience, long-term adaptability, integration with existing fabric, economic resilience, etc. These are the things that make a city work in the long term.
I’m a big proponent of building more housing. But a lot of it is being doing in very short sided ways that lead to huge externalities.
Things such as urban form, street experience, long-term adaptability, integration with existing fabric, economic resilience, etc.
I have no idea what any of this is supposed to mean as a negative to people being able to walk around their neighborhood for essentials. It sounds like a classic vague "what about culture" argument that can't be explained.
We could but it’s not always just “good” to make things dense.
My hometown has had a huge push to add more housing to make things more affordable. What happened? Rents went down for a couple years then right back up. Except now the city has a bunch of more soulless condos and is horribly congested.
Sometimes preserving things and keeping them nice and simple even if it’s costs a bit of a premium is better.
Yes there is a cost to things like a bunch of congestion, decrease of natural spaces and generally soulessness. To paint this as only good is an insane position
Note to the mods, /s is Reddit for sarcasm and this post is a good example of the psychology that leads to people support policies that increase housing costs even though they are designed to decrease housing costs.
> now the city has a bunch of more soulless condos and is horribly congested
The first bit is a taste thing; obviously lots of people view modern sprawl as "soulless" too.
But the latter point is just plain wrong. Dense housing IMPROVES traffic congestion and shortens commutes, always, everywhere, markedly. And it's for a bleedingly obvious reason: pack people in closer together and they don't have to travel as far to get where they're going. QED.
What you're imagining is some kind of fantasy hometown, which never increased in population and whose economy never developed. I mean, it's true. Forgotten ghost towns have very little traffic and quirky soulful architecture, c.f. Detroit. Everyone agrees that's a bad thing, though.
>But the latter point is just plain wrong. Dense housing IMPROVES traffic congestion and shortens commutes, always, everywhere, markedly. And it's for a bleedingly obvious reason: pack people in closer together and they don't have to travel as far to get where they're going. QED.
You are conflating things, adding more people to an area increases congestion, period. Having dense housing vs not dense housing is better for congestion IF the people are already there.
>What you're imagining is some kind of fantasy hometown, which never increased in population and whose economy never developed. I mean, it's true. Forgotten ghost towns have very little traffic and quirky soulful architecture,
It is a highly desirable area, there is no issue with the economy, it will continue to be desirable if we don't destroy it. The "growth always good" crowd is pretty nuts in their views
> adding more people to an area increases congestion, period
Yes, but so what? That's tautological. "Adding more people" isn't an independent variable, it's the economic ground truth over which we're trying to optimize.
The point is that if you need to build N units of housing to match your M added economic activity, building them denser leads to less congestion.
I mean, duh. This really isn't a complicated idea.
Again, you're imagining a single community divorced from inconvenient ideas like "population growth" or "economic development" (and even going so far as to conflate those with "destruction").
Well, sorry. It's desirable because it's developing. You don't get to change the minds of all the people that want to live there, all you can do is help them decide where to live.
If you want soul move to New Orleans. Meanwhile people need comfortable places to live that don't make them indentured servants for the rest of their lives. I'll take a neighborhood with walkability and density over an old drafty brick building with no grocery stores any day.
Is this supposed to be a reply to me? Who are you quoting?
No one ever said "no downsides", no one said "infinite growth" and the comment I replied to was just talking about standard apartments being "souless".
Developers not recouping their investment will discourage less housing in Austin in the future and it will become expensive again. A lot of our current housing shortages are from the build up in 2008 and an implosion of the entire industry (so that crafts people did not really exist for the next need for housing).
Last time I did the back-of-the-envelope math, financing permitting delays in San Francisco added 10% to the cost of new housing [1]. (Note: not the cost of permitting. Just the cost of financing the delay.)
This is deadweight loss that everyone in the transaction wins from eliminating. One could absolutely see lower prices and higher developer margins if this waste were cut.
I thought about that. But a bank would rather lend in lots of high-confidence, low-duration deals than a small number of high-margin deals. The only people who lose when housing is built are incoment landowners. Because prices go down.
They can recoup the investment with volume (especially apartments) I would think? Sell 10 houses at 2 million each or 30 at 1 million each or however it breaks down.
Their land, labor, and material costs aren’t trivial. If thy were pulling a 10-20% margin before, how will increasing volume (which increases costs) make it up?
Seems like a free market issue, any profit resulting from development is a free market issue. Your profit margins mean worse quality housing for people, and we can see what actual public housing programs look like with Singapore and Vienna where rents can typically cost less than 20% of median salaries:
As renown corporate welfare recipient Bezos would say: "your margin is [our] opportunity."
If the only thing stopping development is that rich developers want to make more money, then maybe we should get rid of the rich developers and let the public decide what to build. It couldn't be worse and it'd be 20-60% cheaper too.
> actual public housing programs look like with Singapore and Vienna where rents can typically cost less than 20% of median salaries
It could work, but both Singapore and Austria have less than 10 million people amd have a residency system where you just can't come in from the outside and get your subsidized housing in Vienna or Singapore. Singapore doesn't extend subsidized housing to its foreign residents, even permanent residents, and they make up 40% of the population!
Vienna is a bit better, as it applies it to all EU citizens who are resident in Austria, but you have to have lived at the same address there for 2 years, you just can't come in and claim one.
Did Austin really have any constraints holding it back? It’s still Texas. People still look at Houston as the canonical example of a city with no artificial constraints.
Public housing projects were and sort of still are a thing. Glass Amendment limits the number of units that can be produced but most areas are well below those limits and the larger issue is that there's no budget or political willpower for social housing projects right now.
Most blue metros in the US have a bad combination of high labor costs/low labor availability, high regulatory burden, wealthy conservative inhabitants who oppose construction, and working class people who are convinced that construction is gentrification.
I've been racking my brain trying ti figure out what it looks like for US cities to pull out of the housing crisis, and I think it's either going to take about a generation, or there will be some catastrophic event (Great Depression II, WWIII) that changes the political landscape so drastically that nobody can really oppose housing anymore.
It's a balancing act. Build too much and developers make less money. Build too little and poverty and homelessness shoot up. Which side do you want to err on?
Before moving to Europe, I always had this conception of Germany as being very good at organizing things, especially anything involving engineering. It doesn't take long to set this picture straight.
> From 2015 to 2024, Austin added 120,000 units to its housing stock—an increase of 30%
Compare that to the following [1]:
> The [...] government [...] intended to build 400,000 new homes annually, including at least 100,000 social housing units. This target was significantly missed from 2021 to 2024. In each year from 2021 to 2023, fewer than 300,000 new homes were built.
So, the city of Austin alone build on average 12,000 new housings each year, while all across Germany, they failed to build 300,000 new units. That's roughly a 1:25 ratio.
So, how much bigger is Germany than Austin, Texas? More than 80 times bigger.
Is that just because big projects don't scale linearly? I would think that that's definitely one factor. Also, I'm not convinced that economy of scale laws apply here, given that this is not one company building 300,000 houses.
But it does show a number of problems inherent in Germany's current situation: (a) shortage of skilled laborers; (b) high cost of labor; and (c) exorbitantly much red tape. These three points alone are among the most frequently cited factors that companies feel inhibit business, and it holds across disciplines.
Shortage of labor, high cost of labor and red tape are all consequences rather than causes. The cause is cultural. Property is the asset in much of the world and the value of property depends on limited supply. There's a disincentive to build more property, especially if you are a politician courting property owning voters.
In the U.K. people are indoctrinated from birth to believe that you work hard to save your money to buy a house and the value goes up so that you can retire with a valuable asset. Flooding the country with new property would completely upend that foundational part of U.K. culture.
If the governments of European countries wanted more property to be built, they could make it happen. The problem is, there is no appetite, they're walking a very fine line: more property must be built but property values cannot go down.
China is an extreme example (and has quality issues) but they have been building more than 10 million new homes per year for a long time, and now have tens of million of vacant homes that nobody wants to buy. That's a nightmare outcome for most Europeans who plan to retire on the value of their home.
The U.S. is fairly unique among western economies in that investing in the stock market has been a normal part of wealth building for the hoi polloi and while homes are important assets, they're not everything. In Europe, investing in the stock market is still novel, property is still the asset.
While it’s a different country my experience in Ireland and the Netherlands has been that there’s this bizarre contempt for builders. Like “I build homes and sell them to people for money” basically makes you satan incarnate. So housebuilding is bogged down in x% social, y% “affordable” (because apparently the goal of making all housing affordable by actually building enough is unthinkable) and very little gets built .
In Amsterdam the Green Party is celebrating making homes more affordable to buy…. By kicking out the people who were renting them. And they continue to say only 20% of developments can be market rate, aka for everyone. When you’re new to the city because you just got a job at booking.com or whatever you only can hope to get a flat in that 20% - the rest isn’t for the likes of you!
The Netherlands is a different kind of environment because there is a calculated policy of not doing anything that could reduce home values. This trickles through all policies for any action that could meaningfully solve the housing crisis.
I exaggerate but the tax structure is such that it encourages using your home as an investment vehicle. We'll see where things go with it but proposed changes to box 3 rules taxing unrealized gains may effectively destroy the possibility of saving any money in something that isn't your primary residence or a pension...
Both of you are really just beating around the bush of this whole issue in basically the same way as the very people you are complaining about, albeit at a different position. You both have a very elitist mentality towards this issue, i.e., “those peasants should move out of the way for superior people like me”, when what you are both describing is ironically failure of the privileged and powerful to understand what is causing the problems, conflicts, and tension; their own behaviors, actions, and mentalities.
Maybe the indigenous population you have contempt for wanting to preserve their communities and cultures don’t want your colonialist mindset of “those savages are not utilizing the land as I wish, so we can just overrule, overrun, and take it from them. How dare they not avert their eyes, for I have a job at booking.com or I go to UT/work at Oracle/Tesla.
It’s funny how you types never suggest that newcomers, i.e., colonizers, pay a high price for their colonization and that go to the indigenous, even if just to compensate them for the imposition and abuse. You always seem to insist on wanting to kick the indigenous from atop your high horse and demand they make way to your superiority as you abuse and exploit them. You’re not any different than any other past form of this colonist mentality, you want to steal from and abuse the indigenous.
I think it's funny how you think I would be "colonizing" the same neighborhood I literally grew up in.
I grew up in Austin. A bunch of people had kids there in the 1970's and 80's. More than where there before. So even if literally nobody had moved to Austin, there would still be a housing crisis without letting people build new housing.
Unsurprisingly, literally just letting the market respond to demand makes things more affordable for everyone. Yea, some people I don't like might move to Austin. They're probably not all bad. That's what multiculturalism is about.
Ah yes, the well-known "indigenous population" of the Netherlands, one of the highest-GDP places in the world at present and of course a country with its own actual colonialist past. Do you really think these "indigenous" noble savages can't afford to pay for their own rents on a market-rate basis? They're keeping outsiders away (unless they pay outsized luxury prices, of course) out of pure unchecked privilege, not for any kind of high-minded culture preservation.
> (a) shortage of skilled laborers; (b) high cost of labor; and (c) exorbitantly much red tape
Does the red tape also stop the Syrian refugees from working in construction? It's a genuine question and I am not trying to be disingenuous.
The last time I was in Germany, I aw several constructions projects in Cologne and Frankfurt. However, I rarely noticed any non-white construction workers. This was quite unusual for a Texan like me because Mexican laborers drive all the construction in Texas if not most of the US.
>But it does show a number of problems inherent in Germany's current situation: (a) shortage of skilled laborers; (b) high cost of labor; and (c) exorbitantly much red tape. These three points alone are among the most frequently cited factors that companies feel inhibit business, and it holds across disciplines.
There are 9 billion people in the world, roughly half of them are perfectly capable of doing manual labor.
There is plenty of skilled labor, and the cost is frankly not that high, you just need to let them work.
Can we be serious here? There is one and only one cause of "high housing prices" and that is a political choice to make housing expensive.
Don't tell people what they can or can't do with their property.
Don't prevent people from being brought in to build stuff.
Do these 2 things and housing will be built if the price is truly high. Anything else is bullshit.
Like most other things, labor is highly regulated in Germany. You've got to understand that (from my experience as an outsider) it seems to be a country where it matters more what you are on paper (e.g., degrees, certifications, etc) than what you can actually do (e.g., practical experience). Not that the latter is not valued at all, but on the job market, it's often not sufficient.
Labor costs are determined by a lot of regulations - minimal wage, mandatory health insurance fees, mandatory pensions fees, etc. make labor costs in Germany much higher than the average in the West. So, it's all not that easy.
Dumb question, many cities suffer from extremely high property (i.e. land) prices. I understand the NIMBY barrier. But I don't understand why it isn't more common to simply.. start a new city. Especially in countries like Australia where property prices are sky high and alternative places for setting up a new city are abundant. Maybe internet connectivity was previously a barrier, but now.. starlink.
I put this question to grok; its response:
> Unfortunately, Australia's legal, regulatory, financial, and practical systems make this extremely difficult (bordering on impossible at any meaningful scale).
Crazy that the reason we can't have an order-of-magnitude reduction in the cost of the most important thing people need (shelter) is not due to resource constraints, but man-made ones.
> Crazy that the reason we can't have an order-of-magnitude reduction in the cost of the most important thing people need (shelter) is not due to resource constraints, but man-made ones.
You say that as though reduction in cost of housing is a universal desire, but it isn't.
Suppose a couple of years ago you took a $500,000 loan to buy a $700,000 house, which you'll be paying off for the next 10 years. Would you like the market value of your house to decline substantially during that time?
If there's enough of the population bought into property, it won't be politically feasible to allow the value of homes to decline.
> Suppose a couple of years ago you took a $500,000 loan to buy a $700,000 house, which you'll be paying off for the next 10 years. Would you like the market value of your house to decline substantially during that time?
No, but when your city proposes a "missing middle" plan, watch who all comes out of the woodwork to scream murder at their research that shows that the projected effect of doing so will lower property values in my town from an 11.5% YoY average increase to a "mere" 9% YoY increase. You'd have thought the city was suggesting executing grandmothers in the streets.
(I cannot personally complain, I put down 10% on my home purchase here in 2021 and was able to get out of PMI due to having 20% equity against appraised value 366 days later, while only making required payments.)
When the problem is particularly exacerbated, it's not even "I got mine", but rather, "I already went into eye-watering levels of debt and I'm still paying off the roof over my head."
You can't start a new city. I city exists for all the things you can do. Your new city will have nothing to do because nobody lives there and there are no jobs to attract anyone to move.
that is why we build suburbs - they get anound this by being right next to a place with everything you want in a city
This is actually how you start a city though, you build a suburb and wait for it to grow into a city. This takes a really really long time so it's better to build near existing cities.
We don't observe this phenomenon occurring often in the modern day only because cities sprawl rapidly and so the evolution of the suburb becomes a borough of the existing city rather than a brand new city. Otherwise Brooklyn, Jersey City, Weehawken, etc. would all be considered new cities instead of being referred to as the NYC metro.
Sure you can. You just need enough land and money to start basic things like a post office, city hall, courthouse, roads, and a way to get power to the whole thing.
Starbase TX isn't a city in any sense other than a legal designation. It's a massive SpaceX industrial facility that has its own municipality similar to the way Disney World has one for its park.
I would expect the adjacent area to become some sort of a city over time. Suppliers will move nearby. Population, amenities and competition will follow. Unless of course SpaceX keels over before all this can happen.
It obviously wouldn't be successful on day one, and it would take some kind of exceptional pressure to jump start it, but these things have been done in the past in the US and have been done recently in China. Not arguing these were good things, but they have happened before.
Think back to the old "company towns". Lowell, Massachusetts, built for a textile mill. Hershey Pennsylvania, built around a chocolate factory. Fordlandia, Brazil, a rubber plantation town. All of these were essentially cities and towns planned out around a central industry.
Similar things happened with the ghost cities in China with several of the big notable ones eventually actually growing into real, functional cities.
Once again, these have all kinds of messy histories and I'm not saying they're all good ideas. But just pointing out, it can be done.
In this hypothetical, who is the individual or group of people that you envision would take the initiative to start a new city? What is their incentive to do so?
Subject to the same constraints. They tried to make one in California and it was blocked by others in the same county. It’s fine to be honest. Over time California will become less relevant to the US and Texas more so.
most people posting here are talking about california or texas - desert or near deserts where there isn't enough water.
however there are many places where there is more than enough water. East of the mississippi for example. other continents also have areas where there is plenty.
Why would you think that the same thing preventing density and new development in cities won’t stop your new city from growing before any building taller than 2 stories is built?
People move to where there is jobs and money. You can't build the housing first, in our society you need capitalists to invest into building businesses to make people want to move there. And because we have spent decades killing small business in favor of corporations, you need corporations to decide to build where there are no people and they have to pay a small short term premium to attract workers. Except corporations don't like doing that because it is a longer term investment and they are worried about next quarter's numbers and maximizing executive level bonuses which means short term planning.
China was dumping money into those cities for people to build businesses and paying people to move there though, it wasn't just the housing. So yes I agree it can work if you go beyond that, but not through applying capitalist principles first and foremost. If you tried to pay people to live in a specific city and pay them again to build a small local business in the US, people would go bonkers about communism and 99% of politicians and capitalist investors would spend every waking moment trying to stop it.
>>> The city changed zoning regulations to allow construction of large apartment buildings, particularly near jobs and transit. In 2018, voters approved a $250 million bond measure to build and repair affordable housing. Permitting processes were reformed to speed development and reduce costs.
All three of the five things most economists say about house building - and each one will hit house owning voters hard making it hard to replicate.
If you are in your terminal home, then yes, selfishly one would want the value to go up. But if you ever plan on moving to another home, sure dropping prices mean you get less, but it also means you pay less for your next purchase.
If you are in your terminal home, you also want low prices until the week before you eventually sell your house, as Texas has a high property tax rate to make up for the lack of state income tax.
As a home owner I don't really care about number go up. I'd rather it go up than down, sure. But staying level would also suit me fine.
Going down might be nice, perhaps I could buy the neighbor's house and combine the lots and make a nice set of row houses ...
House go up being important is really only needed if I'm using it for leveraged appreciation and doing something like dragging the cash out like a piggy bank; but that's a tiger that will have to be dismounted eventually.
Really, I'd prefer not having policies that tend to push up housing prices or discourage people from moving, but here we are, those types of policies are common.
As a homeowner, I want cities to be livable and affordable for those who want or have to live there. I don't care if the value of my home changes one cent. It's honestly kind of useless, because it's not like I can sell the house and buy a nicer one. All the houses are more expensive so it's always going to be a lateral trade. It only helps if you sell and move to a lower cost of living area.
It's kind of a sham that we have been conditioned to treat housing as an investment. Housing is where people live, it shouldn't be a commodity to be hoarded.
You can arbitrage markets for retirement, which is largely why people want their home values to increase. Their home is another form of 401k, and those mortgage payments aren't going to the bank or a land loed, they're going to their future.
It's a minority of people who are ok never capitalizing on their home value.
I read it as presenting the reductionist side of the argument. Not saying that you personally believe it's good or right, only that it is what the majority of homeowners would think.
In that sense I agree with the current state of reality.
But what I am saying is that if we want to change that reality -- and it most certainly is possible to change -- it will take people rejecting the status quo. And there at least some of us who are already there.
As a home owner in Austin, I want my friends to be able to afford homes too and not feel like they have to move to have a yard and a family. Bring on the new construction.
As a former homeowner in Texas, I wanted the number to go down for lower property taxes. Taxes accounted for almost 1/3 of my monthly mortgage payments by the time I sold, and are a significant barrier to affordability of homes when values tend to vastly outstrip the rate of inflation leaving typical households struggling even with the homestead tax exemption.
The only people in the low income neighborhood I grew up in that could afford to weather this wave of out-of-state and investment banking homebuyers were those who were of retirement age and had their property taxes “frozen” at an affordable level.
Growth and fewer restrictions on what can be built makes your land more valuable. Apartment buildings in place of detached houses means rent prices can go down while land prices go up.
As a homeowner I have zero objections to apartments built near jobs and transit (which also means away from my house). I also don't think apartments directly compete with single family housing. Like, they do, but only in certain situations and at certain levels of occupancy and the economy.
I am strongly opposed to building homes in stupid places, worsening traffic or overburdening infrastructure. This is why I tend to strongly oppose ADUs. If you want to turn my neighborhood into a dense urban environment, fine, but buy my house and my neighbors' houses, bulldoze them, and build proper urban density.
I also have a lot of skepticism regarding our housing shortage. You can go find people making the same arguments about housing shortfalls in 2006(underbuilt for years, new family formation, prices will remain high...). But then something happened, and it wasn't that 10% of Americans suddenly died. Suddenly we had more homes than we needed. Why? Because housing demand is related to economics. Now that we're slowing down reproduction and kicking out or scaring off immigrants we're likely setting ourselves up for another round of oversupply. "Good!" Well, tell that to the soon to be unemployed home builders.
Please bear in mind when you discuss "rent control" in the USA you really do mean the version you see in your locale. The idea that rent control sui generis failed worldwide is (in my personal opinion) a stretch.
Public housing also has many models. State owned. State funded but via cooperatives. Part state. state assisted co-buy. There's lots of models and so it is also a bit bogus to talk as if public housing has one shape.
I don't like the tone of input here, there is jeering and name calling and ACKSHEWALLY type responses so I am not going to continue, I just wanted to say: don't forget the lessons learned in Austin may not extend world-wide.
> Please bear in mind when you discuss "rent control" in the USA you really do mean the version you see in your locale. The idea that rent control sui generis failed worldwide is (in my personal opinion) a stretch.
From an economist? no. From rent activists? Sure. From The Mayor of London? He wants it. From economists in London? They don't want it. From rent activists in Berlin? It worked for their client pool. From economists in Germany? Mixed outcome.
The thing is, there is no neutral arbiter. The people who say it failed, are systems level reviewers with overal economic takes. The people (like me) who say it succeeded are looking at sub-cohorts of the housing economy who otherwise would be homeless.
I didn't say anything about who wants the policy in the future. I asked for an example where it achieved its stated objectives in the past.
> The thing is, there is no neutral arbiter.
There are, however, arbiters who pre-register metrics for success and then don't move the goalposts. That way people can at least see what you want and what you're willing to sacrifice.
Anecdote: I lived in Austin from 2017 to 2021. My rent was always very cheap (my baseline is Brooklyn which I guess makes everything feel cheap. But my rent went up $50 for the first 3 years and then down $200 during Covid and I checked recently and my aptmnt is still the same price). Around the time I left everyone was buying up houses to rent and Airbnb. Very palpably felt the growing supply when it came to bnb's (the owners having a harder time competing for renters etc). It's hard not to be surprised in spite of the tremendous growth in that city
It's almost as though the well-known and proven method of building more housing works!
Similarly, the tested and proven solution to homelessness is providing housing up front. Don't have any requirements (employment, sobriety, etc) blocking housing. Those things are easier to achieve with a roof over your head.
> In December 2021, Austin’s median rent was $1,546, near its highest level ever and 15% higher than the U.S. median ($1,346). By January 2026, Austin’s median rent had fallen to $1,296, 4% lower than that of the U.S. overall ($1,353).
For comparison, in San Francisco December 2021, the median one bedroom was $2810. In San Francisco March 2026, it was $3597, an increase of 28%.
It is well known that there was a brief moment in time when people were abandoning San Francisco and “moving to Texas” (mostly Austin) that coincides when the rents peaked in Austin. I’d be not surprised if that was also the time when San Francisco rents were down.
We’re seeing a reversal in trend when SF is hot again and Austin is not. So not exactly a straightforward comparison. It could explain the SF-> Austin and back trend.
So we've got point in time comparisons between Austin and itself; the change in delta between Austin and a particular city known for restricting housing; and the change in delta between Austin and national median rents. They all support the idea that increasing supply tends to decrease costs, which by a massive coincidence is what basic economic theory suggests.
Of course, people can come up with an ad hoc explanation for why Austin's prices happened to decrease against each of those data points. But is there a single principled way to present the data that suggests increasing supply in Austin did not decrease costs?
> But is there a single principled way to present the data that suggests increasing supply in Austin did not decrease costs?
Building more housing will make housing affordable. That’s not up for debate. The extent to which is what you need to look at. You can’t ignore the effects of net migration trends. My comment mostly wanted to address the parent which arbitrarily picked up data points of 2021 and right now and was comparing Austin and San Francisco. Because those specific points in time are tied to the migration of people between the two cities at a higher rate than usual.
You mean the folk with highest purchasing power (2-3x median wages of the average person in the city) moving in and out of the city have negligible impact on the average rent in the entire city? I guess the 20% increase in rent in 2021 in Austin was just vibes.
Idk about rent, but even as of a year or two ago, Austin metro housing index was lower than its 2016 level. Rent following a similar trajectory wouldn't be super surprising to me.
Nevermind the collapse of salaries flowing into the area which is destroying what the market demand is willing to pay for the existing stock? This crowd, of any, should be familiar with how many jobs flowed into that area and the promise of how many more it would be. Only for that to basically evaporate overnight.
Like, yes. At a base level, you need enough supply to keep prices down. But, the entire point of supply and demand is that it is two curves that intersect. And the demand curve, if pushed up, will also increase prices. Could you over supply such that you drive down the unit costs in a way that keeps prices down? Of course it is plausible. It is not typical market behavior, though. For that, you need excessive spending by someone.
Unfortunately, there's a lot of people -- especially further left -- who fight this kind of reasoning. They insist that the housing market is different, and that just building more private housing won't help.
No amount of evidence will convince these people, because they already made up their mind ahead of time: their ideology says the market can't help, so the market can't help, period. Any evidence to the contrary is a plot by billionaires or something.
Their core argument is that we could increase supply but choose not to, and that we should be maximizing supply (as an ethical and moral mandate, but that is not a tenant of capitalism really) because housing is an essential thing like food and water. FWIW we don't maximize food/water production either for various reasons, which would also drive food/water prices down.
Maximizing supply can mean other things than building like taxing unoccupied homes by large amounts making them unpalatable to own as a second (or higher) home, thus putting them back on the market. However these aren't all good because obviously our economy deals with more effects than just simple supply and demand, like maximizing the amount of loans given to people wanting housing regardless of the ability to repay is known to be a bad idea.
If you throttle the supply you can clearly control the price and the people you're talking about believe there is a concerted effort to control that supply. This can happen directly (choosing not to build as soon as land is available to build on) or indirectly (e.g. politics, mass media influencing people to vote to not increase supply).
What people generally hate is production of essentials not being maximized which would give us the actual lowest price, and maybe we as a society should be maximizing that supply to arrive at the lowest cost for a given house with given features.
And then the rebuttal to that is usually "tough shit lol" which is why people coming out with simple supply and demand replies are generally seen as derisive.
Some of what you're saying does happen, but what I said also happens: many leftists genuinely believe that increasing production via private companies is impossible or entirely unhelpful.
It's not just that they're focused on other things -- some of which I agree with, to be clear, as I'm a social Democrat -- they really believe that supply and demand won't work.
There's a lot of talking past each other on this issue. Sure there's probably clueless people out there, but a lot of left wing housing activists that are skeptical of free market housing liberalization understand very well economics and the benefits of housing supply, but are concerned about the time horizons involved and concrete near term impacts on low income residents.
It is of overall net benefit over the long term to raze a small three story walkup apartment and build something denser, overall increasing the amount of housing.
However, in the short term it's immediately quite (sometimes existentially) bad for affordability if existing affordable housing is destroyed and replaced by brand new (and thus inherently luxury) housing.
So accordingly we naturally see low income housing activists push back against some redevelopment and ask why development is not occurring in wealthy single family home areas where the amount of people impacted is less and class those that are not remarkably negatively impacted.
Personally I think the data shows that in general it is still really beneficial to build out as much housing as possible and avoid the negative impacts of a shortage, but I do think there are people validly pointing at a real problem of displacement.
The solution to ALL cost of housing problems globally is this.
Everywhere you look, Australia, Canada, UK, EU this is just a massive issue for young professionals with long-term disastrous downstream political consequences, and yet, the solution is so simple but hardly ever implemented in these countries.
Just BUILD MORE HOUSING. Mass build everywhere. Vast amounts of land is available. Just build homes and apartments everywhere!
Why do people accept that supply/demand works in so many industries when the private market is allowed to flourish, but won't accept it for healthcare, education, etc?
When? Because we don't use market solutions for those things now. Those are two of the most manipulated markets in the US. They also are two of the three industries whose prices increased by more than inflation, everything else has gotten cheaper (inflation adjusted) over the last several decades. Those things are related.
Sure, but it's not that easy. The swaths of new people need infrastructure and support: schools, hospitals, police, fire stations, roads, water, sewage, flood prevention, etc. That's a lot of money upfront. This is why most cities in the EU block many projects like these.
Also those people will saturate downtown making it lose its culture.
I'm always amazed at the American way of "just throw money at the problem".
Is it simply normal supply and demand? They had massive surge of prices that made construction more profitable so after a time lag, building boom happened, bringing prices back to the average long-term trend.
If some place becomes 'affordable', its economy suffers because good people don't like living in places where housing is affordable - they move out.
Hey, here's a good way to improve 'housing affordability' locally: dumb down schools. People with cash will move out and prices will fall. Something suggests me it's not the solution really lol.
Affordability is relative. System always balances itself on the level that barely over 50% of people can afford housing (because it's a democracy). There's no fixing to it unless one abolishes either democracy (so no one cares what people want and developers have a free roll building as much as they want), or market economy (when the Party provides housing as it pleases).
Has anyone also considered the possibility that Austin is just not that great? Like...those comparing it to the Bay area or a light weight NYC need their heads checked. Maybe people (like me) just realized it wasn't great and...left?
If you’re asking about a population decrease then, no, Austin has not had a declining population count for decades, and not recently either, although growth has slowed. So it’s not a case of decreased demand.
Another part of this - higher interest rates really put the brakes on home values. We own a rental property and the home value has more or less been locked in since 2022. In our otherwise hot metro area, nobody has raised their rental rates on similar properties in 4 years.
It's a win-win for our tenants. Prices seem to be stable and there's no rush for them to lock down a house RIGHT NOW.
It's sure not good for my bottom line as a landlord for them to keep adding homes and keeping rates up. But it sure seems like a no brainer for society at large.
Any reasonable landlord/real estate investor will have planned for various results - if your rental empire depends on "rents go up" and can't handle a flat market, let alone a downturn, you're going to be in for a bad time.
A stable market is great; as you can find good deals with some sort of certainty, and focus on where you can actually build value (rehab, etc).
If you are smart, you throttle up investments just before a boom starts and throttle them back just before a boom ends. At least you try to up your margins during good times so you can survive bad times. The trick is keeping your talent employed during the bad times so they are trained up and still in the industry for good times. Stability is obviously preferable.
Same has been happening in Melbourne, Australia. The state government has basically steamrolled the boomers and allowed highrise construction next to existing train stations. Despite having huge population growth, rents are some of the most affordable in the country.
One of the things I like about the reporting in this Austin article, is they break down by building class.
In Melbourne I've never found a good source for this, only general averages; and my suspicions are that we just build shitboxes and claim the rent is lower on average, capturing something like shrinkflation rather than affordability.
I was apartment hunting in Melbourne in 2015 and I was appalled at the quality of most inner-city apartments. Tiny shoeboxes, no sunlight, paper thin walls.
At the time I didn't think they should have been allowed to be built. But looking back, they probably did keep a lid on rents. A bad roof over your head is better than no roof.
You should be able to identify properties and track them over time; and then even if you argue that "brand new condo" vs "same condo 10/20/30 years later" aren't directly comparable; well you can start to compare other metrics.
Can it be also related to demand not catching up or even declining? If place is in high demand and prices go down shouldn't it cause even more people coming to it (compensating for a possible price change). (Note: not an expert on this, I'm just curious how it really works - besides obvious thing: more supply -> price goes down).
> Can it be also related to demand not catching up or even declining?
The Austin metro area's population has been monotonically increasing [1]. Increasing housing supply decreases prices. If you want to reduce housing costs, flood the system with housing.
I am trying to build new homes in Washington state. I have been navigating a gauntlet of a five step process where eleven departments have to give approvals at each step and it has taken five years. This is just to split a twenty acre parcel into two ten acre parcels.
this is completely anecdotal, but there's a pretty cool trend i notice where urban places with reasonable renter economies tend to fall into one of three categories
1) "b- to c-tier" cities that build build build build build (austin, slc, phoenix)
2) de-industrialized cities that already have the housing stock (chicago, baltimore, detroit, pittsburgh, philly, worcester)
3) struggling smallish towns and cities that leaned into building better downtowns (there's a billion of em)
the problem in sf is building is incredibly expensive, and projects that have been planned, land acquired, are simply sitting as empty lots because developers don’t have the money.
interest rates for construction loans, reduced funding, labor and material costs, all contribute to the amount of housing built.
there is a bond being debated in the ca senate now that will help by giving loans for construction.
I think Denver has a few other things going for it that simply make it a higher value housing market, namely:
1. Mild weather - dry weather with well defined seasons without
2. Natural recreation - some of the best year-around outdoor recreation in the country
3. More diverse economy - Austin is extremely tech heavy. Anecdotally most people saw dot-com boom hit Austin much harder than 08 crisis. Tech is bleeding right now.
4. Geography - building in Denver is constrained by Rocky mountains. The plains offer endless building but in Texas you can build any direction and topology is very flat.
I think the other thing not mentioned here is that Austin saw a huge influx of home buyers in 2020-2024 - most everyone I met during that time that moved from West Coast bought at the high and left within 2-3 years after realizing they couldn't handle the crumbling infrastructure and hot summers. Many of them have been holding onto these properties and trying to rent. This only put more pressure on another group - those who bought properties specifically for short-term rentals (e.g. Airbnb). Those who did stay are see massive headcount reductions in tech industry. Meanwhile there are many natives who would love to live closer but are stuck with properties purchased in '21-'24 in Round Rock, Georgetown, San Marcos, Taylor, etc.
So IMO this a perfect storm of not just building housing supply (which is great - the best thing the city has managed to do in the past 15 years), but also significant demand correction.
As someone born and raised in Austin and a homeowner within the city - I am ecstatic about decline in rents and home values. Austin became what it is in part because it was affordable.
We have no nearby mountains, hot summers, poor infrastructure, poor politics, a heavily polluted coastline --> there was no reason for it's prices to be as high as they were.
I have been to Austin only once for South by Southwest back in 95. As a musician I loved being in Austin, especially for that event. I do get the differences between there and Denver. I love it here. However it is getting hotter here too. It's 85 today and will be 87-88 Friday, and we are running out of water along with the rest of the Southwest. Who knows what's going to happen or where to go to if it gets real bad?
I would buy more complex arguments around housing price solutions if ALL housing price problems everywhere else hadn't been solved by building more housing
Or...maybe...Austin just isn't that great? Maybe (just maybe) a lot of people (myself included) woke up one day and was like "why are we doing this?" and moved somewhere better?
Austin is not what people pretend. Same with Denver or SLC.
There are no tier 2 cities. Its like countries. There are first world, and third world. And thats it.
Wow it's almost like the law of supply and demand is in fact accurate. Who would have thought basic economic 101 would be proven out? It's almost like when you allow supply to increase to meet demand the price equilibrium can move down. Shocking.
I say this with a bit of righteous anger though because the moronic democrats in California want to virtue signal about housing and homelessness but they make it downright as difficult and expensive as possible to increase housing supplies. The democrats in California have done nothing but make our problems worse, even as there are states we can look to with proven examples to solve our problems. Nope... more housing lotteries and BMR units will be required instead of just making it easier to actually build..
I'm with you and feel your anger. So tired of California's useless virtue signaling about housing and homelessness while no progress is made for decades. California, stop messing around and start living up to your virtue signals! It's infuriating to live in California, hear all day about caring about poor people, then do nothing at all for the bottom line and in fact endeavor to make it harder and discriminate against poor people as much as possible.
And then they'll act so surprised when the populists without a plan show up and win the national elections.
Some of the problem in California is that the population of want-to-buyers is all focused on a small number of extremely geographically constrained areas.
Their answer is always "more density" but more density isn't going to solve it - the demand is not fixed and density will not alleviate it, so there is natural pushback on ruining the area and not actually solving the problem.
The real answer here is that the valley needs to extend further south, as in the 1990s plans for companies to start building campuses in Silver Creek or further, which would require the government to incentivize such moves.
Had the dotcom lasted another two years or so, IBM, Cisco, and many others would have done the capital investment in campuses further out, and the viable housing area would have increased dramatically, but it didn't work out that way.
> what they didn't mention is that supply didn't impact rents until the large remigration back out of Austin
This has been studied to death. But just like soybean farmers in Idaho voting for tariffs on China it seems a category of urban renter is more wedded to ideology than self interest.
The Austin metro area's population is up [1][2]. Austin's GDP is up [3]. Migration per se doesn't explain a phenomenon that is robust across cities, countries and centuries.
2-3% is a margin of error compared to 20-40+% y/o/y growth. That means the influx ceased, some left, some had babies. Meanwhile housing was built.
Of course rents will crash if everyone anticipates 20-40% growth and it’s suddenly 0 . Let’s see in a few years if the pricing trend continues downward or upward.
If it’s downward, yes we’ve solved the rent problem by “building”. If it’s upward, as it has been, it’s not just about supply .
> Let’s see in a few years if the pricing trend continues downward or upward
This was the argument of the tobacco companies in the 1980s. This experiment has been run many, many times and only had one outcome. Overwhelming housing markets with a supply influx absolutely works. It cuts against ideology, however, so you’ll always have folks who want to wait for more data while properties appreciate.
For reference, I moved to Austin in 2018, my rent for my apartment was about 1200/month. In 2022 (the year I left), my rent jumped suddenly to 1600/month despite new apartments near me, and all of the apartments I looked into had similar jumps. And anecdotally speaking my coworkers all reported similar massive rent spikes.
It feels more like this is associated with the tech industry cooling significantly in Austin so they can't get away with pricing bumps. This isn't to say new housing doesn't help, but it certainly didn't prevent me from getting fucked on rent.
Relevant: I just listened to an interview with Max Buchholz, US Berkeley assistant professor and the lead author of a new working paper titled "Inequality, Not Regulation, Drives America's Housing Affordability Crisis."
He says that building housing does bring prices down, but not very much. In his paper they argue that income inequality is a big driver of making housing unaffordable. (Not billionaires, but more those making more than the median income vs the rest) Because (among other reasons) those with higher income have leeway to spend more on housing versus those at the lower end of the income scale who can’t spend more on housing even if they get a raise.
This is nonsense. In every material good, the buying power of nearly everyone has increased in real terms over time, regardless of inequality. It's only in housing, with constrained supply, that inequality can drive up prices; and even in that case, it doesn't actually change the housing supply- if prices are high, that just means a lot of people who want to live there! Inequality doesn't reduce the number of houses.
Building a little reduces prices a little. Building a lot reduces prices a lot. If the prices are very high, then it's very profitable to build, so unless stopped by regulation, you will get a lot of building. Even if building merely keeps the price from going up as density increases, the value provided by living in an area goes up from agglomeration effects as it grows.
I mean… duh? Genuinely baffled at people struggling to understand this. When there’s more of a thing, it costs less. Which is good when that thing is essential, like housing.
Not sure the idea of housing being an asset which endlessly accrues value is good for anybody involved, long-term. Open to disagreement, though! I’m no economist.
I guess the confounding factor is that the population isn't fixed. Greater construction could result in population growth which cancels out the gains from greater supply. You'd have to build faster than population growth to lower prices. And generally developers aren't looking to do that.
Depends what the situation is, if the rents are absurdly high where you can undercut them and still profit then of course they would rather build more. If they are getting close to cost price, developers won't build more to lower it beyond that. At that point if you want to lower prices more you'd have to look at lowering the cost of construction.
Developers usually want to buy land, build house/apartment, and sell house/apartment.
They want to flow as much as possible - so if there are unlimited building spots you get a smattering of various options being built as they all find there niche.
If the building lots are rare, then they all will be built into the most expensive possibility.
If you try to take any local action that might lower housing prices or even keep them steady, you will likely be stymied by a large contingent of people that deny that new housing could ever raise rents.
The idea that supply and demand don't apply to housing is quite popular:
Even when it's not peer-reviewed and contradicts a ton of more serious research attempts, a bid of research which rarely gets popular press coverage.
It's like climate denialism, there's huge demand for denialist positions and very little research to back it up, so the press does not reflect the research.
People are quick to point out that induced demand exists - especially people that aren't fond of change.
Very broadly speaking, people mis-estimate effect sizes in economics by orders of magnitude. Induced demand is just their foothold to claim an effect exists, before they go about claiming the effect size they want to see.
How would induced demand work for housing? I understand it for say transit use or car travel or like Facebook visits, but when there's twice as much housing do I... buy another home? Buying extra houses as "an investment" in a culture that is hell bent on depreciating my investment by building more housing is one of those "r/WallStBets" crazy plays, if I'm wrong I will lose my shirt and everybody will laugh at me.
Also, even if that were a problem, which seems dubious, you can regulate it. Massive tax hikes for second and subsequent homes are a thing in some places.
I love induced demand. I'm going to use it to get rich - buy up some abandoned town somewhere, and then pay to run a 100 lane superhighway to it; induced demand means the town will fill up instantly and be hugely valuable!
It doesn’t work unless there is currently repressed demand for living in that abandoned town because not enough housing or other factors.
No one is complaining about a housing shortage today in buffalo which used to have twice as much housing stock as it does today, because the demand simply isn’t there now.
Exactly - induced demand is just a misnomer/misunderstanding. "Pent-up demand" would be a much better way to explain it - but that would reveal that at some point the demand ceases; even SF has some limit - once all 12 billion people live there, demand will level off.
Good analogy. I've always considered induced demand a bit of a fantasy.
New businesses the sprout up that market themselves certainly induce a bit of demand, but more lanes and stoplights doesn't exactly motivate people to want to go somewhere.
Yeah, and when we add lanes to roads, the average speeds increase and commutes get shorter. Right?
Also, if the government gives me $1 billion, then I'll be rich. But what happens if the government gives everyone $1 billion? Everyone will be rich, right?
... Your examples seem to undercut your point if I'm understanding what you're trying to say.
In your first example the "cost" in the form of traffic etc. was reduced so more people "buy" in the sense that they go on the road until you reach a new "cost" equilibrium. In practice that equilibrium is quite close to the original cost so it doesn't fix the issue traffic. But if that same number of people had driven before the high way expansion traffic would have been way worse; the cost would have been too high so they previously opted not to drive.
In your second example by increasing the supply of money the money ends up costing less; it becomes worthless due to inflation.
When there's more of a thing it cost less.
To be fair, building more housing can be like highway example. If there's tons of pent up demand of people looking to move somewhere increasing supply dramatically can fail to move the needle on cost because there's many marginal buyers who all have basically the same price. If you've got a million people who want to move somewhere and are all willing to pay up to 500k for a house the price of a house won't fall under 500k until you've built at least a million more homes.
> ... Your examples seem to undercut your point if I'm understanding what you're trying to say.
That perhaps you shouldn't assume that kindergarten-level theories always correctly describe complex markets?
> In your first example the "cost" in the form of traffic etc. was reduced so more people "buy" in the sense that they go on the road until you reach a new "cost" equilibrium.
So go on, do continue this line of thinking. You built more houses.... then what?
Yeah that’s induced demand and it’s a good thing for the economy.
The rents are supposed to reduce only temporarily. But the goal is to not reduce is permanently. The goal is to increase land utility. Building houses helps with that cause.
> Yeah that’s induced demand and it’s a good thing for the economy.
No, it's not good. It leads to nothing but urban decay.
That's how you get Tokyo with a crazy price bubble, while beautiful traditional houses decay into dust just 3-4 hours away.
> The rents are supposed to reduce only temporarily.
Except that they don't even decrease. If your population is growing, so is your rent. And it doesn't matter how much you build (for large enough cities).
Again, this is simple observable truth.
> The goal is to increase land utility. Building houses helps with that cause.
Yeah. The goal is social engineering to force people into shoebox-sized apartments, to be ruled by their benevolent masters.
That's also why we're getting a global pushback against it.
> No, it's not good. It leads to nothing but urban decay.
This is subjective and loaded. I don't see any concrete point you are making.
>Except that they don't even decrease. If your population is growing, so is your rent. And it doesn't matter how much you build (for large enough cities).
They did temporarily in Austin - 19% after accounting for inflation.
Overall, making a city like NYC is preferred for any country. Even if the prices are really high, it reflects the economic activity of that city. Why would a house cost ~$800k if the person living there won't make multiples of it with their wages?
> This is subjective and loaded. I don't see any concrete point you are making.
Forced (by economy) in-migration into cities is a net negative for the country with stable or shrinking populations. It leads to objectively worse quality of life for people (less living area per person and more financial stress).
> Overall, making a city like NYC is preferred for any country.
Nope. Making a city like NYC is a recipe for disaster. Europe and the US are living through it right now. How do you think we got that kind of polarization?
When it's a zero-sum (since population is stable/declining) game, the losers are not going to take it lightly. They become an easy target for all kinds of populists.
> That's how you get Tokyo with a crazy price bubble
Are you really making an argument that rents in a place like Tokyo are not supported by real value creation? Are we supposed to all live in "beautiful, traditional" heritage houses? Those houses are often a luxury, and favored by the wealthy who can live with the resulting inconveniences. They're not a sustainable solution for the masses.
> The population numbers you have reported are misleading because they use 5 year estimated numbers.
I specifically chose consistent data series. While each one of them can't represent the true population, they absolutely do illustrate the trend. The number you're quoting is from the Census, which only happens at 10 year intervals.
If you have better population estimates for these years that use the same consistent methodology, I'm all ears.
> Even if you were right, the rents fell down by more than 19% after accounting for inflation. I’m not sure what you are trying to say?
In SF rents fell even more. Without significant new construction.
> I specifically chose consistent data series. While each one of them can't represent the true population, they absolutely do illustrate the trend. The number you're quoting is from the Census, which only happens at 10 year intervals.
False. You are comparing 5 year estimates with 1 year estimates so it’s not consistent.
With SF I agree that it went down because of population but I’m not sure how that explains 19% reduction in rents in Austin with higher population.
So let's test my prediction, shall we? The 2025 data will be released in April. If my prediction holds, then the population figures for Austin will be nearly flat or falling.
I also made the same prediction for Seattle, its rents are now falling slightly. So its population will be decreasing.
> With SF I agree that it went down because of population but I’m not sure how that explains 19% reduction in rents in Austin with higher population.
As you see from my data, the consistent series up to 2023 indicated falling population. The 2024 data was the outlier.
I still don't see your point. The population increased in Austin while the rents decreased. Even if nearly flat, the rent fell down by ~19% in real terms.
Austin is not a success story. It is a treading water story, and an example of lying with statistics because most of where it's cheap to live in "Austin" literally wasn't Austin when these measurements start. They just literally redrew the lines in part to make this headline.
If you want a success story, look a Vienna. That's what actual community and housing looks like and its because of the exact opposite of what econ clowns on here believe, non-market housing.
Anyone ever drive around Austin, its highways and its endless new construction of new superhighways, to the point that Google Maps is confused?
As annoying as NYC (and driving) are, there are downsides to unlimited housing and lack of zoning - as it turns out, the same states that do this sort of thing we all praise, are the same laissez-faire philosophies that oppose communal public transportation and walkable urban communities.
Interesting to see how building more housing in Austin actually lowered rents. The debate about rent control versus new construction is always thought-provoking.
What this article says: *The median apartment rent in Austin has dropped X% over the past 5 years*
What this article does not say: *Apartments in Austin cost X% less to rent now than they did 5 years ago*
It's completely possible for the cost of the average apartment in a city to go down, while the cost of existing apartments increases. How does this happen? The enshittification of rentals. Units get smaller (apartments in Austin are shrinking), they get built near highways (air pollution), they lose amenities like parking, they pop up places where they previously weren't allowed (smaller ADUs, basement units, see article), they get subdivided (landlord throws up a wall and turns a large 1br into a cramped 2br).
If supply and demand were really working the way its heralds claim, then we'd see the price of existing units going down. This article offers no evidence that this is happening. I don't believe for a minute that it is.
Instead, it's the same story as always: your rents will keep going up. You can move somewhere cheaper and shittier if you want. The people who profit will congratulate themselves while decrying the thing they actually fear: rent control.
I feel like the economics around the Texas real estate markets are getting really twisted due to other factors.
The quality of construction in these new builds is generally very bad. If you compare a Texas home built in 2025 with one in 2015, I can guarantee you will find shocking differences once you pull back some of the drywall or have kids jumping around upstairs. I had a 2023 build for a year before I realized I had a hot potato situation on my hands and decided to bail.
The new builds used to command a premium, but in some communities the situation has completely inverted. Buyers are coming in and explicitly avoiding anything built in the new millennium. Information is flowing so much more freely around real estate and the unspoken bullshit scams prevalent within. We've now got home inspector influencers on TikTok showing first time homebuyers exactly what to look out for. We didn't have these kinds of information channels when I was shopping for my first home.
I'll admit ignorance here, but I've been skeptical of the claim that new construction drives rents down. What I actually see is: a luxury apartment building goes up, surveys the market, and sets its rents 30% higher for the privilege of living in a new building with a gym for dogs or ball pit or whatever. Then the older buildings say, "Well, we can raise our rents 20% and still be the best deal in town," and so on.
Maybe if you flood the market with 30% more housing units like Austin you get the Econ 101 effect. On the other hand, apartment owners realized intentional vacancy is a profitable strategy, which alone seems to defy that basic interpretation.
what you're neglecting to consider is what would have happened if someone moved to Austin (say a wealthy person from SF) and that expensive new apartment didn't exist.
The mechanism by which new construction drives down rents is that people that need a new apartment are in less competition with existing residents in older worse apartment buildings.
So the newcomer from SF moves into the expensive new apartment, which means that there's less competition for decades old apartments, which means that when one of those is vacated there is less price appreciation on that product.
If there is a scarcity of apartments what happens is that when a decades old apartment is vacant it is filled by a wealthy newcomer and the landlord increases the rent accordingly.
In my neighborhood in NYC, I've also observed that rents increased after luxury apartments were built here. In fact my landlord cited the increased median rent in the neighborhood as a reason to raise my rent.
My understanding of the situation is that luxury apartments do indeed gentrify neighborhoods (i.e. they increase the local rent and drive displacement of locals that can't keep up with those rent increases).
However, across the entire city, it slightly eases rent pressure by providing additional housing supply.
So, like you mentioned, if you get enough housing across many neighborhoods, you can drive down rents. Otherwise, that luxury complex in your neighborhood might only be helping ease rent pressure in other neighborhoods.
"In fact my landlord cited the increased median rent in the neighborhood as a reason to raise my rent."
Your landlord lied to you to get you to pay the increase. You had little choice because finding a cheaper apartment probably wasn't possible/desirable and you probably didn't want to argue with him in front of the rent board. Understandable but that doesn't mean your landlord's explanation has any validity.
You're saying that even though landlords may justify rent increases because of new constructions, if new constructions hadn't been built they would have used a different justification? And the rent increase would have increased just as much?
That's possible!
Maybe the rent increase is independent of that single new construction. Or it could be mixed depending on the type of housing. I looked into it a bit more[1] and it seems like lower-quality apartments near a new build go up in price but high-quality ones go down in price.
> a luxury apartment building goes up, surveys the market, and sets its rents 30% higher for the privilege of living in a new building with a gym for dogs or ball pit or whatever. Then the older buildings say, "Well, we can raise our rents 20% and still be the best deal in town," and so on.
I think that might not be the right cause and effect relationship. The actual cause is increased demand. This creates both the increased pricing of existing stock and an incentive to build new stock.
> I've been skeptical of the claim that new construction drives rents down.
It can, but not in isolation.
It requires a couple additional variables such as population demand (rate of growth of Austin has reduced since the COVID boom [0]), existing stock (Texas had a building boom and bust in the 1980s [1] that decoupled it's housing market from the rest of the US), and a shift from buying to renting.
That said, the peers I have who work in professional real estate (not realators - as in actual MDs for REITs or multi-generational landlord families whose parents went to school with Governers and Mayors) are starting to shift away from real estate to equities because of headaches around succession planning and reduced margins.
What is ending up happening is megacap REITs like Equity Residential, Essex, Avalon, etc are buying out older groups, taking stakes in new developments, and shifting away from selling condos to perpetually leasing. At their size they can afford to have significant amounts of unleased units becuase they would have made up the cost via higher rent on leased units, tactically building high margins condos and SFHs in high appreciation geographies, or loss harvesting in order to subsidize commercial buildouts like data centers.
Naively saying only construction will reduce prices is false, and if the consolidation aspect is not solved (and sadly, it won't be) it would only lead to an even worse situation.
Additionally, these are hyperlocal problems and what may work for Austin may require significant retooling for Chicago.
Your scenario is simply describing a massive under-supply problem, and mis-attributing causality for price increases.
If the older buildings are able to raise prices 20% with no increase in vacancies after the new build, the new build not coming in would mean those older buildings rent would be bid up more than 20%.
The people moving in who could have afforded the 30% more expensive luxury units will just have to pick from the older units and outbid lower income people for spots in this low supply, growing city (under no other scenario could you crank up rent on aging stock 20% without losing to competing landlords).
There were a ton of apartments built in lower-cost areas outside of the urban center as well - the Parmer area (near the new Apple campus), the Tech Ridge area near I-35, and out by the airport and Tesla factory as a few examples. It wasn't only high-end, lots of mid-level stuff was built too.
The laws of supply and demand don't apply to housing in the Bay Area.
We need affordable housing, not more housing for rich people, made by rich developers. Just because my house is worth $3M and I have $3M in stock options doesn't mean I'm rich. I'm working class, I had to come back from paternity leave to log-in to Slack on my laptop every damn day, and tell Claude how to write this damn software!
Did you sign the petition to block the apartment building down the street? It would RUIN our neighborhood!!
As an aside, I am not part of the problem!! I care about poor people!!! I am a good person!!!!
Oh you want proof? Look at my front lawn: "In this house we believe black lives matter, science is real, love is love..."
Proof point 2: look at my Tesla! "I bought this Tesla before I knew Elon was crazy!"
Plus I voted for Kamala. I'm GOOD. People in Kansas are DUMB and BAD.
Its wild how the solution to housing costs is really just:
Build more housing. Keep law and order.
No it doesn’t need to be “affordable”. Yes rent control is a terrible idea.
Just build more housing.
Note: that the US already has plenty of housing and housing costs basically go up in areas of low crime relative to economic opportunity. If you build housing, but allow crime to rise, you have wasted everybody’s time.
It’s a difficult problem not because we don’t know the simple solutions (supply and demand). It’s difficult because the people who have the majority vote also typically own the houses and they obviously don’t want the prices to go down. This is not just speaking about the US, many countries are facing this issue
But people who only own 1 house at most are still disadvantaged by this - sure, the value of their apt goes up, but if they want to switch to a larger house, the difference they're paying also increases, so do the property and wealth taxes, if applicable.
There are many stories of solidly low-to-middle class families who lived in an area where property prices soared, and had to choose between bankruptcy or moving out, because they could no longer.
The only people who benefit from this are the investors and landlords. So allowing housing prices to surge is literally taxing the poor for the benefit of the rich.
Buildings also deteroriate - ask a civil engineer. Building something that lasts 50-100 years is much cheaper than something that can be maintained economically indefinitely. If you own a house with copper or PVC plumbing, that they go bad after 40-50 years, and fixing burst pipes quickly gets expensive.
Why do countries allow housing prices to rise then? Simple, it allows banks to have a massive portfolio of loans, where they get a steady source of income for literally decades, while also getting a massive portfolio of real estate they can use as basis for leverage to grant loans (which they profit off of).
Governments can then tax the banks and get some of that money without the dreaded specter of increasing income taxes.
The only problem is that the everyman gets stuck with a 10,25, and now 50 year old loan (with a similar increase in price) for the very same median house.
> So allowing housing prices to surge is literally taxing the poor for the benefit of the rich.
How do we limit home prices increasing? I see your point but solving this isn't trivial.
There are a bunch of successful models, people usually mention Vienna as having a particularly effective housing policy - what they did is the city bought up a bunch of land, and built housing on top of it in various government subsidy programs, from non-profit public benefit corporations, to social housing for the poor.
They have strong renters rights, protections against rent increases, and high standards to which dwellings must conform to.
So while you can be a landlord in Vienna, you have to compete with affordable housing options, and you're forced to maintain a high quality yourself.
So that means that unless you can offer something the market's willing to pay extra for, being a landlord is not particularly lucrative thing.
Notice nowhere in my post did I mention the typical 'landlords are evil and must be taxed to death' approach.
Which is in stark contrast to most places where you're paying through the nose, the standard of rented dwellings is low and your rent can be increased or you can be kicked out on moments notice.
Build more housing
If investment companies that already own tens of thousands of homes buy them and keep increasing the rent, the problem has not been solved.
Investment companies own only about 2% of the housing market, and most of these are rented out. Investment companies aren't really the cause of housing prices remaining high - in moderate- and high-demand areas, we simply aren't building enough to keep up with demand.
Investing in housing only makes sense when supply is limited. The way to stop investors from hoarding housing is to make housing a bad investment by building a lot of it so cornering the market is impossible.
Except they cannot increase rents when there is enough supply for a market to actually work.
The market will remain irrational longer than…
Of course they can when they own them all. See De Beers diamonds. Buy them all, keep the price artificially high.
Diamond prices are famously crashing now due to artificial lab made diamonds (increased supply)
The De Beers cartel was able to avoid anti trust scrutiny because the best reserves are outside (Africa/Canada/Russia) of the most lucrative markets (US/Europe/Asia).
Corporations control only a small faction of housing supply.
They can only do that (own them all) with government assistance. See De Beers diamonds, who leveraged the legal system to create a monopoly.
The solution is to build more housing and get the government out of the picture.
Insanely stupid restrictions on residential construction make it easier.
land value tax would fix this
No, build more housing.
That's not a different choice. LVT makes it more expensive to hold land that's less productive than it could be, the result of which is that development is encouraged.
No, building more housing. Read the article.
You literally didn't read the article.
Build more housing.
I do really enjoy all the arguments coming up in this post that are pretty easily defeated by “build more housing”. No one has been able to come up with a compelling argument about why this doesn’t work.
Housing can not be both affordable and a good investment.
If we want housing to be affordable ie “limit them increasing” we have to stop people using them as investments.
There are many ways. My favourites are:
- one human can own one residential property. No companies or businesses can.
-or, property tax doubles (or 10x) with every residential property owned.
- no foreign ownership (Canada does this now)
- government can own and rent residential property at no profit. They supply plenty of other basic necessities of life, why not houses?
It can be both affordable and an investment - it cannot (and will not) perpetually be a market-beating top-tier investment.
All of the items above can have drastic unintended consequences; the way to keep prices affordable is to make sure that supply is always outstripping demand by a bit.
Some examples of unintended consequences:
* I can't add an ADU to my existing property which would add one more dwelling unit
* Subdivision of property is discouraged; combining parcels reduces tax even if no new dwelling units are created
* This might be the closest to doing something though it could substantially discourage non-citizen immigrants (legal or not)
* This has been tried before and had well-documented issues, but might be doable if they can provide a "floor"
At least in the US, up until the rise of 'flipping' and AirBnB home values typically tracked with inflation. Personally owned real estate was a hedge against inflation and a tax shelter, not an 'investment'.
> It can be both affordable and an investment
By definition if something is affordable, it’s not a good place to store money with the goal of it increasing.
> All of the items above can have drastic unintended consequences.
Yes, absolutely. These are not fully fledged solutions, but a starting point. Some of them may need an asterisk or two. Of course, unintended consequences are perfectly fine if the final result is better than what we have today
> I can't add an ADU to my existing property which would add one more dwelling unit
Your wife or kid could own it. If you don’t have either of those, you don’t need two homes.
> Subdivision of property is discouraged
Subdivision and sell is perfectly encouraged.
> This might be the closest to doing something though it could substantially discourage non-citizen immigrants (legal or not)
I am a non citizen immigrant in Canada. I just had to bide my time until I became a PR then could buy a house. Perfect.
> This has been tried before and had well-documented issues, but might be doable if they can provide a "floor"
Again, it doesn’t have to be perfect, just better than what we have now.
> it could substantially discourage non-citizen immigrants (legal or not)
Make an exception for owner-occupiers?
So like what California did, which resulted in only a couple hundred thousand units over half a decade when they were hoping for/needing a couple million statewide.
Not the mention that ironically, the private owners with the space to build an ADU on their lot are the ones most likely to already be wealthy, and not actually rent it out to anyone below their socioeconomic bracket.
> one human can own one residential property. No companies or businesses can.
So, in other words, you want everyone who cannot afford to outright buy a house to be homeless?
Not at all. The government should step on and rent them as rent to own systems. Make no profit
This is what apartments are for...
Why should housing be an investment?
Because we live in a democracy and voters want housing to be an investment because they own housing
The majority of voters would vote to make income tax zero, that doesn’t mean we should accept that simply because the majority wants it.
In the US the majority of voters just voted for a racist, homophobic pedophile convicted felon.That doesn’t mean everyone should shrug and say “it’s the will of the people”
I refuse to believe you would have this attitude if you and your family had to rent drinking water while people profited wildly from it.
The situation is unacceptable and needs to change, irrelevant of what certain people want.
Sure, I agree, but this isnt a technocracy. If you want the government to change you do need to convince the voters at large.
> The majority of voters would vote to make income tax zero
Im not sure this is true. Most people recognize the taxes are needed for the government to provide services.
> That doesn’t mean everyone should shrug and say “it’s the will of the people”
This is the reality though, it doesnt matter that you or I disagree. Trump is the legitimate president even if he's a racist, homophobic pedophile convicted felon.
I own both a car and an apartment. The former is not an investment and most money people say you shouldn't consider the one you live in an investment.
> Why do countries allow housing prices to rise then?
Because if you forcibly keep housing prices low, you have a shortage.
That's part of it, but I definitely have known quite a few renters who opposed building more housing. Denial of supply and demand, as well as general dislike of "rich developers" is strong in many groups.
Incentives are typically the strongest force to watch, but so are various cultural/political narratives people come up with. People clearly don't all vote in our own economic interests in many situations. I'd assume this is largely because in the current information ecosystem, people don't understand what's in their economic interests.
This! >> I'd assume this is largely because in the current information ecosystem, people don't understand what's in their economic interests.
It's wild that even renter's aren't voting for more housing. I think it's because basic economics isn't taught in k-12 or even college anymore and this is causing a lot of problems.
Of course, there are other solutions too, like starting new cities and incentivizing companies to move there in the beginning. People follow jobs, they have to, now more than ever. if companies move there, people will follow. How is that we used to be able to create new cities and yet now, we all the sudden can't. has our material wealth really dropped so low that we can't afford to build new cities?
and what about down-sizing? in hong kong, you could create bed sized units at a fraction of the cost of a full sized apartment. microapartments? etc? all NOT legal. i think it's wrong of the city to decide that for people. individuals should be able to decide whether they want that or not, rather than being forced onto the streets.
Many people are not driven entirely by their economic interests, thus you can see people wearing clothes not from the Walmart bargain bin, driving cars with electric windows, and eating out instead of cooking rice and beans at home. Renters, just like home owners, want to live in the most comfortable home they can afford in general.
People who lament the lack of rentable pods and don't understand why anyone would pay more for a bigger house in a quitter neighborhood or just for a nice view exist, but you are in the minority. Thus renters are not going to vote to live in a ghetto so they could save a few hundred on rent.
> It's wild that even renter's aren't voting for more housing. I think it's because basic economics isn't taught in k-12...
Teaching economics is not the solution (see papers on financial literacy). Rationality is hard and even highly educated people have terrible models of cause and effect. Even your own dependency analysis implies that voting for X helps to get Y (which hasn't been my personal experience).
Do you recall exactly what kind of housing they were opposing? Because that is a major piece of context we are missing here. I don’t think I’ve ever met anybody who simply said “no more housing.” It’s usually much more specific than that, such as opposition to house flipping and STR’s, or wasteful planned communities of McMansions and concrete.
The local subreddit for my area always has tons of negative comments about any new housing development.
Some people complain it is "luxury" or even just normal and not "affordable."
If it is single family housing then people complain about the lack of density. If is apartments or condos they complain that there is already so much traffic in that area and adding thousands of new people will make it even worse.
When small old houses are bought up, torn down, and a new apartment / condo complex goes in they complain about the lack of character and soulless new development that all looks the same.
I have to agree with some of the other comments that many people never learned supply and demand or are completely incapable of understanding a for profit business.
I've seen comments about memory / RAM prices going up. Gamers are now so anti-AI because it is making their GPUs more expensive and now memory, flash, and hard drive storage as well. I've seen comments that say the government should step in and force companies to make GPUs at affordable prices. We can argue over whether health care or clean water are a human right but some people seem to think cheap GPUs are a human right.
Generally these people oppose the building of "luxury housing" because they don't get how ALL housing increases supply/reduces market price. Also the idea of a developer building a kind of... predistressed property has never made any sense to me.
> ALL housing increases supply/reduces market price.
I can tell you firsthand that that is absolutely not true. The massive rush to renovate or build new short-term rentals in the 2010s had a disastrous impact on rental prices around my city, especially coupled with historically low interest rates that made these enterprises far less risky. It’s also incredibly disruptive to neighborhoods/communities, not just because of bad guests but because it can rapidly drive up value, leading landlords to sell and/or rapidly drive up rent which means kick out lower income tenants whether it’s intentional or not. Most of the STR’s in particular were also not being done by locals. 70%+ were out of town developers. Currently almost 90% of STR’s here are whole home which means not local owner/operators living there. It’s just hotels by a different name taking up housing in residential neighborhoods.
When interest rates and home insurance went up a few years ago, coupled with stricter rules for getting an STR license, a lot of people sold their properties (usually rentals/STR’s), and the price to buy as well as rent noticeably came down pretty rapidly. It’s still too high, but the drop was noticeable and quick. The purpose for construction absolutely factors in to these discussions.
Taxing short-term rentals would handily address these issues while still allowing people to derive some income from their otherwise vacant pieds-a-terre and vacation homes.
But that’s the thing, that’s not what these properties are generally here. These are homes bought in cash by developers in neighborhoods occupied by residents. People lived in these homes prior and somebody else would have likely bought and lived in it if they left.
When my wife and I were buying our first house we had two houses taken out from under us because somebody came in with an all cash bid tens of thousands higher than ours. Both are still Airbnb’s.
> These are homes bought in cash by developers in neighborhoods occupied by residents.
This happens because hotel accommodation is generally overpriced. But if you tax the airbnb rentals, it deters profit-minded developers from engaging in this practice, while still allowing it as a last resort for homes that cannot be rented long-term and would otherwise sit empty.
Maybe in theory but that’s not what happened here at the end of the day. That’s the entire issue. This type of construction and renovation is bad for housing. My city’s story is very common - it was especially in the 2010’s.
House-Hotels managed by companies based in other states (sometimes even other countries!) don’t belong in residential neighborhoods. We have zoning for a reason.
> Maybe in theory but that’s not what happened here at the end of the day.
If you mean that levying targeted taxes/fees to mitigate the bad side-effects of STR's has not been tried, I agree of course. I'm not denying that the detrimental side-effects exist.
I think my larger point here is that we can’t say “all construction is good” if we have to have a ton of qualifiers that ignore when it isn’t and/or expect all sorts of parameters and rules that aren’t being implemented. Tons of bad building goes on all the time, and it is reasonable of people to oppose it. Belittling them and accusing them of not understanding basic economics is not fair at all. There are plenty of examples of construction that should be opposed.
STRs reduced the supply of housing. You’re making my point.
I think we might be talking at cross purposes
An ex of mine mentioned to me that she was going to join a local community group trying to prevent development on an empty lot near her apartment. I asked why she would want to do that? Her concerns, and the concerns of the people she was showing me on facebook, were:
1. "They didn't do an environmental review" 2. She didn't want to hear construction noise. 3. She didn't want the construction to cause rats to leave the lot and go to buildings. 4. She also said she didn't want her rent to go.
I believe it was this lot: https://web.archive.org/web/20250821002539/https://www.nytim...
I think it is common for people to organize, even in the most urban and educated areas in America, against their own interest.
[dead]
Apartment complexes. Mostly "luxury" apartments, but including ones with some % of affordable units. Some were replacing houses, but mostly replacing parking lots, vacant lots, or even older, smaller apartment buildings -- in a neighborhood that was already almost entirely apartment buildings.
Lots of people have kids and want them to be able to a) not be a victim of crime, and b) be able to afford a house. Anyone who has loads of money to afford high house prices and private security can afford luxury beliefs, as espoused in Oscar acceptance speeches, but everyone else with housing and kids is either voting for less crime and better affordability, or is not yet voting for those things.
Plenty of people with kids are voting to block new housing. It's not that they don't want their kids to be able to afford to pay rent. They're just not making the basic connection between supply and demand.
This just happened in my neighborhood. There was a proposal to build low rise apartment buildings about a mile from the detached single home neighborhood where I live, and people had lawn signs opposing the construction. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the loudest and most active anti-development voices were from Trump supporters. Economic illiteracy used to be the domain of the political Left, but the Republicans are making real inroads in rejecting free market principles, so there's some amount of political realignment. Luxury beliefs indeed.
In an area entirely filled to the brim with the "evil" Trump supporters ... new housing is going up, apartments, row homes, single family homes, it's all there.
Nobody really seems to care ... yet.
It's often very instructive to find out who is "behind" both promotion and resistance; because both groups will attempt to find ways to "play both sides" and get opposition moving.
> In an area entirely filled to the brim with the "evil" Trump supporters
Hanlon's Razor applies: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity".
> Economic illiteracy used to be the domain of the political Left
IMO the right is not really the right that most of us remember, so it's not worth trying to reconcile their current ideology with the fiscal conservatives of decades past. The current GOP is unserious, their base consumed by conspiracy theories and driven by grievance.
>They're just not making the basic connection between supply and demand.
They don't like my beds. There's something wrong with them! I can't be the problem! -Procrustes
Yes. It's the people's fault for not understanding markets. Couldn't be that markets are fundamentally structurally fucked by an inversion of the demo pyramid. Couldn't be that market participants are just delusional about how much other actors should have extracted from them.
The tragedy of the commons is a real thing. People focus on their own personal short term economic gain at the expense of long term sustainability and gain - even for themselves - because people in general find that longer term outlook difficult to reason about.
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others we've tried. This short term thinking is one of its classic failures, because in many ways you're codifying the tragedy of the commons.
"typically own the houses and they obviously don’t want the prices to go down."
I've never understood this: If I replace a single home with 20 apartment homes, I've raised the value of the whole property at purchase time no? You're already dealing with home valuations that have faaar outstripped wages, the only way you go any higher is to build more homes on the same property.
Counterintuitively, the "I don't want to live next to apartments" line of thinking actually seems more potent in the regular NIMBY headspace? Like people will forego higher valuations to keep their suburb a suburb.
> I've never understood this: If I replace a single home with 20 apartment homes, I've raised the value of the whole property at purchase time no?
It's a commons problem. In your scenario, you have absolutely increased the value of your property. 20 apartments is more valuable than a single family home. However, you have also reduced aggregate demand by housing 20 people. That reduced the value of your neighbors' properties (or at least reduced the rate at which their value increased).
NIMBYism posits that values will continue to increase without forcing any property owners to invest in improvements so long as they collectively block any efforts to increase supply.
Are there any real examples of this actually happening?
Local to me, Arlington and Reston VA have both seen massive building sprees over the past 20ish years (mostly adjacent to the Metro). Home values have never been higher in either location.
My own personal example... I live ~1 mile from the Metro, so just outside the building boom zone. There was next to zero housing in that zone - it was all office parks - and now it's a mix of $1+ million townhomes, $1+ million luxury high-rise condos, and dining/retail. My own home value is up 50% since COVID and that's true for just about any house in my zip code.
And without the redevelopment/infill, I posit the whole area would be less desirable. NIMBYism feels more about "change is bad" than property values.
Literally the entire peninsula of the bay area is an example of this happening. You have people voting to "keep their small town feel" sandwiched between San Francisco and San Jose.
I meant examples of increased density reducing values, not NIMBYs stopping development.
Ah, well I still think it applies as a counter example. Avoiding density makes values rise, especially when combined with increasing office space density/local job growth.
In general I don't think it requires all that much thought in terms of why/how price changes happen. Housing demand is inelastic, and you can find examples of that causing both rapid price increases (metro areas with high friction building requirements) and rapid price decreases (metros with population declines) when out of equilibrium in either direction, which is exactly what you'd expect of a good with inelastic demand.
Yeah, I live in Falls Church, which has seen more build-up than other areas in Northern Virginia because the city has never had the kind of restrictive zoning that the anti-"Missing Middle" campaign is still fighting in Arlington. The value of my single-family home peaked in 2024 and has dropped slightly since. To my understanding, this is generally true of my zip code and not true of comparable zip codes in the area.
But Falls Church is much nicer now that a few mid-rise apartment buildings with ground-level retail have gone in! As a resident, I am very happy about all the new development. I expect that over time, that will have a positive effect on property values, but there is an observable short- and medium-term effect working in the opposite direction as the increased housing supply eases demand on the existing housing stock.
Do you believe that small drop is a result of new development or just a blip in the market? Price increases near me definitely slowed as interest rates increased, but we haven't yet seen a drop. But, as far as I know, this is one of the only walkable areas outside the Beltway, so there's a lot to like if you want to be untethered from a car for much of the week. It's also a relatively affordable area (vs inside the Beltway and some SFH neighborhoods) - my TH 1500sqft (1800 if you include finished basement space) would currently sell for ~$700k. The new-build THs are 2500sqft, with a garage or two, and sell for just over $1 million.
It's not a common problems in Austin at least. You (a property developer) buy a single home in bad shape on a big lot in the city. Then you redevelop the single home into 20 apartments, greasing the wheel appropriately (of the local government) to get the needed rezoning and permits. No one else can do this because they don't have the connections and monetary resources you do. You pocket the increase in value of that property (minus the cost of grease) by selling it off as "condos" which have dubious maintainability going forward. You never lived here anyways, you have a ranch in Bastrop.
The article we are commenting on is literally about this happening in Austin.
I live next to a sprawling apartment complex after rezoning allowed it to go in.
Now we have a large homeless encampment partially on the apartment complex lot - that the complex can't deal with because their lawyers told them off.
Now we have a significant uptick in petty but quality of life impacting crime.
The roads around the apartment complex are now swamped because the entrances were placed stupidly.
And the people who live in that apartment complex are also upset about all of this.
None of this is about "my investment". It is about not letting commercial outfits hurt my quality of life to subsidize their profit margin. It's not the fault of the tenants, nor me.
Now we get to sue the stupid property management company until they fix their issues.
It's absolutely the latter thing.
The thing that is prized above all else is privacy and exclusivity. People are paying money to ensure that few people live near them and that those people are the "right sort of people."
Dating back to the 1930s the original core goal of zoning was to restrict apartments so as to keep poor people and minorities out of certain areas. We know this because it's well documented in the newspapers of the day because back then people were more comfortable explicitly saying how classist and racist they were.
A related idea: politicians know how to fix the problems, they just don't know how to get re-elected after doing so.
I occasionally wonder if it would be a net positive to make political office terms a little bit longer, but limited to exactly once. No reelection pressure.
Same part of my addled brain that thinks we should increase dramatically our count of representatives, abolish in-person legislating, and then fill the roles with sortition.
Things are so party focused nowadays I don't think the person behind the mask really even matters.
It might slightly help, you'd probably have less votes on giving themselves pay raises, but at the end of the day the majority of ads and voters are going to revolve around party lines.
“Show me the incentive and i’ll show you the outcome”
I’ve learned a long time ago that we’re not always aware of how incentives drive our own behavior, it just happens naturally. This is exactly what’s happening with housing.
that's true, but plenty if people oppose building new apartments because, in general, the price will be high and they see this high prices and incorrectly conclude rents are rising when in reality, people move in, freeing up the less expensive places they were in before.
similarly they oppose because "gentrification" even though the evidence is that gentrification is net positive, even for those already living in the area. gentrification or not, people leave at the same rate. Those who stay see their income/wealth rise compared to the case of no-gentrification.
That’s why California has had dozens of state laws passed in the past 3 years that override many city and county ordinances to force additional supply. Lawmakers knew the only solution was more housing.
These bills permit the construction of denser housing near transit, force cities to actually meet housing quotas, allow the state to override a city’s zoning to permit more housing if they don’t make a good faith attempt, loosen the rules to build ADUs, and many other changes.
Is it ideal that we had to get to this point? No, but housing wasn’t being built.
New construction has already decelerated in Austin due to falling prices, which compresses already-near-zero margin on real estate development.
So yes, it really is "just build more housing." The problem is: why would you build more housing as prices fall?
I'm confused by this objection, if you draw a stereotypical supply and demand curve, you can see how prices settle to an equilibrium point. Of course reality has more complications, but I think your objection is 95% answered by a supply and demand curve. You keep building houses when it is profitable. You stop when it is not. This naturally keeps everything in balance.
Free markets for housing are likely to settle into an "optimum" where some percentage of people cannot afford housing at all, because while construction/rental of housing for them would net a return, it's not worth the opportunity cost. Plus you should not wait for the market to respond to a lack of housing: people will be homeless in the meantime. Supply/demand is mostly reactive, because building for anticipated future demand years down the line is very risky, so most investors don't like that.
Markets don't optimize for "everyone gets some", yet that's precisely what you need for housing. You'll always need the government to come in at some point to provide for those left behind by the free market.
The thing about arguments like this is they're usually used in service of blocking housing. As in we shouldn't do what Austin did because it won't fully solve the problem. We should instead stick with the status quo, which gets much worse than Austin.
Isn’t the initial response to a lack of housing that people consume less housing than they would like, rather than homelessness, eg families with children sharing rooms more than they might like, adults living with roommates, or just people having to live further away from where they would like to be (or moving out of a city altogether)?
I don’t dispute that there are levels of affordability that are bad enough that they start to lead to various forms of homelessness, but it doesn’t seem to me like a fundamental rule that, if some people can’t afford to live alone in a large amount of housing, they also can’t afford to live with roommates sharing a smaller amount of housing, and that the right level of housing prices should also price some people out of those arrangements (ie it demands a pretty high level of inequality if you assume that the market allows typical people to afford to live alone and that sharing can typically reduce per-person rents by half or more)
It’s all fun and games games until you’re municipality starts banning adult co-living situations.
You underestimate how intrusive these people will be to protect the value of the single largest asset most of them will ever own
Individual landlords also dislike those and may not allow it, because the ability of the household to make rent now depends on all adults in that household. 3-4 broke adults who may only loosely know each other and with their own individual plans are a lot less stable than, for example, married couples. It's basically 3x the risk and hassle. Chances are you'd have to evict them after just a couple months.
They'd rather just leave the apartment empty and hope to find a better tenant.
> municipality starts banning adult co-living situations
Is that not typically happening only for more egregious situations? E.g. the ban is on more than 3 or 4 unrelated adults living together. There are plausible reasons why that should be regulated, it is not clearly a conspiracy by homeowners to prop up the value of their own homes.
> Free markets for housing are likely to settle into an "optimum" where some percentage of people cannot afford housing at all, because while construction/rental of housing for them would net a return, it's not worth the opportunity cost
You provide no basis for the idea that the returns on housing have to drop below the point at which its financially viable to build before housing becomes affordable. You just say "because" then restate your premise.
> Markets don't optimize for "everyone gets some", yet that's precisely what you need for housing.
Just because markets don't optimize for it, doesn't mean it doesn't achieve it.
> You'll always need the government to come in at some point to provide for those left behind by the free market.
Disagree.
"Not worth the opportunity cost" is not the same as "not financially viable". It means that there are lower risk/higher return investment opportunities than creating that housing. More simply stated "Why would I want to turn my $100 into $110 +/- 20% if I could turn them into $130 +/- 20% instead?"
"I lost a foot" is not the same as "diabetes caused me to need my left leg amputated below the knee", but if you're talking about whether or not you can make it to the store a few blocks away without assistance the distinction isn't really important.
Is that necessarily true or just incidentally true in certain metros given the regulatory restrictions we have now?
Our food is supplied via markets and yet with just subsidies almost nobody starves across western countries.
The trick is to acknowledge the market as the main mechanism at play, and have the sense to work around the margins. When the tinkerers get too enthusiastic, they tend to do more harm than good.
I have struggled to understand why houses don't get built and land sits idle for years. I can only assume that it's significantly more complicated. I'm not trying to excuse the complications. I guess if the house prices are forecast to go up, you build some houses, but not all that you can because the longer you wait, the higher the profit will be on the ones you start later. If house prices are going down, even if it's profitable when you start, you're not likely to build houses because you might be left holding houses that will sell at a lower margin. If there was a tax on unused land, that might skew things towards building more even if prices are declining, but I'm sure there are lots of views on that.
Why would you build on a plot of land when the plot of land itself is already appreciating in value with you doing nothing to it
Building is risky and costly
Having an asset that appreciates on its own regardless of what you do with it is not
In Texas, at least, the lack of income tax is made up for in property taxes. Just owning that plot with nothing on it is still going to be a sizable liability.
Holding costs of land are far from $0 in any major metropolitan area. Sitting on it involves its own form of risk.
Vacant land that's desirable is often held back from development due to zoning or infrastructure issues.
> Vacant land that's desirable is often held back from development due to zoning or infrastructure issues.
Nah, it's mostly speculation. Zoning/infrastructure issues get baked into the price. If you cannot build anything on a plot of land, its price falls.
Only at point of buying. If you buy some land and the mayor suddenly implements rent control then the value goes down.
Until someone gets the zoning board to wave a magic wand and change the allowable uses of the property, and then it's a lot more valuable.
This happens all the time, and is a major reason why people will sit on land for extended periods of time.
Sitting on it is a predictable cost, while building means a costly chaos which may or may not turn out the wished profitability. So when you are used to "old profits" you maybe rather wait on the predicted do-nothing-cost, and hope for the tide to turn again in your direction.
Guys you have no idea about these things and what you are talking about. source: I am a city plot owner.
No land owner will suddenly become a developer to build an apartment block.
A plot owner can sell land to a developer or form a joint venture with developer putting in their land as starting capital (much more risky) most people either keep land as gold or sell it when they need money.
I hope it is clearer now.
The very idea that everyone who owns land should build an apartment block is laughable, it is very complicated endeavour best not to get into it if you know nothing about it. Hell building a single family house is complex, let alone five story building.
So you either keep it if you don’t need money or you sell it if you want to buy something else or need to have liquidity. And you don’t even sell it to buy other investment vehicle because land is already better than gold.
My plot increased 3 times in price in 10 years. Try to beat that with SP500. It’s virtually immune to inflation no matter how the broader economy fares it will always shield from inflation because you cannot make more land hah.
Even in utopia of automation and post scarcity society good location land will be truly lucrative and unimaginably expensive if not outright prohibited to own by private individuals. The question is what will be a “good location” in 30 years.
> My plot increased 3 times in price in 10 years. Try to beat that with SP500. It’s virtually immune to inflation no matter how the broader economy fares it will always shield from inflation because you cannot make more land hah.
The GFC says hi :-)
> No land owner will suddenly become a developer to build an apartment block.
No one is suggesting this.
> A plot owner can sell land to a developer or form a joint venture with developer putting in their land as starting capital (much more risky) most people either keep land as gold or sell it when they need money.
Most people don't own vacant lots, but some who do hold onto it as an investment. It's a pretty poor one on average over time, just like gold (which is a good analogy).
> The very idea that everyone who owns land should build an apartment block is laughable, it is very complicated endeavour best not to get into it if you know nothing about it. Hell building a single family house is complex, let alone five story building.
Again, no one is suggesting this. The assumption is that a developer would buy a lot to build on, because that's what happens in practice.
> So you either keep it if you don’t need money or you sell it if you want to buy something else or need to have liquidity. And you don’t even sell it to buy other investment vehicle because land is already better than gold.
Land and gold are not better than the stock market over time.
> My plot increased 3 times in price in 10 years. Try to beat that with SP500. It’s virtually immune to inflation no matter how the broader economy fares it will always shield from inflation because you cannot make more land hah.
The S&P 500 beats real estate over time. Congratulations on getting lucky with your plot of land. Land is a good inflation hedge, assuming you are in a growing area. Ask rust belt land owners how things worked out for them.
> Even in utopia of automation and post scarcity society good location land will be truly lucrative and unimaginably expensive if not outright prohibited to own by private individuals. The question is what will be a “good location” in 30 years.
Thanks for highlighting one of the many issues with communism, but we will never reach a post-scarcity society for many reasons, including this one.
You have no idea what you are talking about…
What on earth are you talking about?
You know what increased more than 3x in the last 10 years? The S&P 500 index (it went from $203.87 at the start of 2016 to $681.92 at the start of 2026). And your plot of land is a massive outlier to the upside in the US overall during that time.
Historically, undeveloped land basically tracks inflation. Obviously, there are specific plots of land that dramatically exceed that, and there are specific plots of land that don't keep up with inflation.
That's the only thing you got right: raw land is an inflation hedge.
If you think you do know what you are talking about, do you think you could back it up with a source?
> Even in utopia of automation and post scarcity society good location land will be truly lucrative and unimaginably expensive if not outright prohibited to own by private individuals.
Indeed, there’s a reason you see silicon valley execs going all in all acquiring land to build fortresses. At the end of the day, regardless of the cold march of technological progress, land remains the root of all real power.
If a minority has most of the wealth then the equilibrium supply may include a lot of supply of second homes, very large homes on large plots for the rich, properties sold at a premium based on how much they can extract from renters, and even investment properties occupied by nobody whilst still having insufficient small basic homes and dense housing.
Capital that could be invested in better serving the bottom half has to compete not only with the use of those resources to further enrich the rich but other investment opportunities.
There is more than enough land for everyone, and rich people aren't really competing for the kind of housing that poor people are competing for, e.g. smaller plots with smaller homes. The demand of the rich does not eliminate demand of the poor, so the market produces different kinds of housing for different clientele.
Think about it this way: assume you supply all the housing to all the rich people. Then there still remains untapped demand of others that can be fulfilled by further production of homes for those specific people.
This story fails when land becomes restricted, which is exactly what zoning laws cause. Zoning is a big harm to the poor.
> rich people aren't really competing for the kind of housing that poor people are competing for, e.g. smaller plots with smaller homes.
This disregards basic geometry. Sure, in some rare situations you only have one small plot of land surrounded by existing construction or natural boundaries. But, in the majority of cases, you have one large plot of land, and you can either construct one big house on it, 5 smaller houses, 10 small houses, or 200 apartments in a block. The rich are absolutely competing for this lot with the poor.
And as inequality goes up, the rich can even start contemplating buying up surrounding properties, tearing down construction, and transforming a small plot into a much larger one.
But zoning is required to maintain order. Nobody wants anybody to live in favelas.
As with everything the regulator needs to strike a balance to make the market work.
Given the choice between being homeless and living in favelas, millions in Brazil have chosen to live in favelas.
The reality of zoning laws in Western countries is to provide a target for regulatory capture by the NIMBY crowd. With the result that we're systemically underbuilding housing, then wonder why we wound up with homelessness.
Favelas are a local optimum which systemically is very difficult to get out of and is a sign that the regulator is powerless. It's a great example of a market failure.
Rich and poor alike are competing for scarce land near where people actually live and work.
There's a couple of "ifs" there and the scenario seems implausible. If I look at the prime real estate in a city it tends to be a lot of skyscrapers rather than very large homes (with occasional exceptions like say a Buckingham Palace). But it looks like the economic equilibrium is lots of cheaper apartments rather than large homes for rich people.
> ... and even investment properties occupied by nobody ...
Not much of an investment. Something is wrong if that is happening, probably manifesting as a lack of supply. Otherwise what is the point of an "asset" that doesn't generate income, degrades over time and could easily be rented out at a profit rather than sitting unused?
Whatever scenario there is where it makes sense to have an empty property, assuming a sane policy backdrop, it'd always be better for the owner do what they were going to do anyway but also rent it out.
People don't want to rent those homes out because once you're doing so it's difficult to evict a long-term tenant. You just lose out a lot on flexibility - even if you try and manage that risk by leasing out housing e.g. on a yearly basis, landlord-tenant law often overrides that since there are strong ethical reasons for not evicting someone who has since come to treat that rental space as their home.
Short term rentals are better on that score: no one sensible forms a long-term expectation that they're going to live in an Airbnb that they've rented for a few days. (If you think short-term rentals are "bad" for the long-term market or have negative side-effects on the neighborhood, then tax them to manage that tradeoff. But banning them altogether is unconscionable and just leads to houses sitting empty and unused.)
The purpose of housing is not to provide an investment vehicle nor should we optimize for this. Airbnb should just regulated out of existence in most urban markets because we are chronically low on housing and the city doesn't need short term rentals at all.
The purpose of most real estate is to provide shelter for people, not to sit empty and unused. That's exactly what AirBnb allows to those who are only willing to rent short term (because it's their vacation home and they want to be able to use it).
Housing someone provides a fundamentally different kind of value than offering a second home or short-term stay. A home meets an essential social need, while vacation homes and similar uses provide far less public benefit. On that scale, the social value of housing a person is vastly greater than the value of adding another short-term rental bed.
That does not mean hotels would stop being built, because developers and hotel operators are optimizing for a different kind of value. But it is more than enough reason to oppose turning even a single home into a de facto short-term hotel.
The reality is not simply that people are monetizing unused space. The ability to rent homes short term encourages people to buy more second homes than they otherwise would, because the income offsets the cost. It also encourages investment in housing that would otherwise remain in the long-term market, since owners know unused time can be monetized. Some buyers purchase properties specifically to operate them as Airbnbs, and many landlords convert homes that once served monthly or yearly tenants into short-term rentals because they can charge more, adjust rates freely, and often earn more overall.
You are referring to properties held by the already rich (only the rich can afford 'vacation homes').
If they can't afford a 'vacation home' without short term rentals then it should be sold and provide housing year-round and build equity for a new homeowner.
There are some places in the UK (mostly new developments in London) that have a significant number of deliberately empty investment properties despite the law here making it easy to evict tenants. They are not being used for short term rentals either.
Although the easiest route (no-fault eviction) is being abolished soon, wanting to sell a property remains a valid reason to evict.
Some people just buy property as a speculative investment.
I do not think it is the main cause of shortages in London - that is people buying holiday homes, which are often large and centrally located. London provides a lot (restaurants, nightclubs, gambling, prostitution, financial services...) that attracts people with a lot of money to spend from all over the world.
> despite the law here making it easy to evict tenants
"Easy" is relative. "Evicting" an airbnb'er once the term is up will always be orders of magnitude easier than kicking out a long-term tenant who regards that as their actual home. There's not even anything necessarily wrong with this! The easiest way to address the issue is literally to slash any remaining red-tape that's making things difficult for those who would want to AirBnb these properties out, while managing the resulting side-effects (including the plausible effect on the long-term rentals market) by levying a special fee if necessary.
As a bonus, easy AirBnb rental provides an alternative for some who might otherwise want a permanent holiday home.
If we don't have an excess of housing why should we allow ANYONE even one single property to serve as an unlicensed hotel. If we tax un-lived in property extremely punitively nobody will hold them at all and it should soon be sold or rented out.
I'm fine with taxing both long-term vacant properties and AirBnb at fairly high rates, since both have negative effects on the surrounding neighborhood - the latter to a markedly less extent than the former, of course.
If you want second homes to be used productively, just allow folks to list them on AirBnb for planned short-term rental. Long-term rentals are a total non-starter politically for second homes, since you obviously can't ethically throw out someone who regards that rental space as their home. But short-term is actually fine.
As for larger homes, people should be allowed to live in there as larger, extended family groups - a common pattern in non-Anglo cultures. Ban "single family" restrictions since they amount to unconscionable discrimination against such reasonable living arrangements.
Some would say that housing is a right (while acknowledging the need for housing construction and its workers and supplies to be paid for) and that it should be funded somehow, even if the free marker profit becomes negative during certain periods. Like any market manipulation, the question then would be how to intervene to keep housing construction going when construction isn't profitable, while not fomenting corruption in the industry.
Housing where? Is housing for me in Malibu a human right? There's plenty of places to live in Texas for basically nothing.
I'm honestly trying to take this seriously, but I really can't square the problem of location and utility. On of the reasons why West Virginia has such a low homeless rate is just that mobile homes and manufactured housing is pretty much legal in many areas around the state. One of the reasons why California is so expensive is that those types of inexpensive housing options are effectively illegal statewide.
Yeah seriously... when I was dirt poor and hurting, I moved to Shreveport and was able to get by on minimum wage. There's plenty of places in the Deep South where one may live a decent life for moderate wages. Not everyone gets to live the life of Riley.
> There's plenty of places to live in Texas for basically nothing.
What are the employment options there? If I move to a cheap house somewhere where there are no jobs for me, I just moved somewhere where I cant afford.
> Texas led the nation in job creation in 2025, adding more nonfarm jobs than any other state and setting multiple employment records
https://www.wfaa.com/article/money/business/everything-bigge...
As someone who has lived here for a long while, it seems like there are lots of jobs in a lot of industries here. We're not all oil riggers and cowboys.
>If I move to a cheap house somewhere
Again, I'm not trying to be difficult here, but "where" is "somewhere." There are jobs in Austin, San Antonio, Kerrville, Marfa, and El Paso. They might not all be for me, but they exist in all these places. Where you live and what your commute is, again, is not exactly something that's particularly trivial to define. At what point should I start looking in San Antonio rather than Austin?
These are hard questions. This is what I mean when I ask whether I have a right to housing in Malibu? At what point should I be expected to just move to East LA?
At the end of the day, housing in Austin is relatively inexpensive. There are real options below $300K. Living in SF, it's pretty astounding that that's even possible within the city limits, much less at reasonable commuting distances.
I certainly think incentivizing subsidized low income housing is worthwhile, and I think even incentivizing builders to just target the low income price points is also worthwhile. I just think that focusing on subsidizing the lowest income folks, rather than letting markets actually work for most people has been shown to trivially fail in CA where I live at actually accomplishing anything. A lot of "ugly" 5-over-1's have been built in Austin, and it's working to keep the place affordable for working class people. I'm absolutely fine with that.
> At the end of the day, housing in Austin is relatively inexpensive. There are real options below $300K.
This is so insanely out of touch. Most people will never be able to afford a house over $200k, even in Austin. I live here, you apparently live in California. As a resident, let me tell you that Austin is not affordable, and definitely not "inexpensive". Housing here is relatively inexpensive compared to the most expensive metros in the world, it's not relatively inexpensive compared to the US housing market, or more relevantly, the Texas housing market. This isn't the Bay Area, it's the middle of Texas.
> A lot of "ugly" 5-over-1's have been built in Austin, and it's working to keep the place affordable for working class people.
Austin isn't affordable for working class people and it hasn't been for a long time, so no, those new constructions aren't keeping it affordable, they've just stopped the insane rent increases that were coming every year for more than a decade. A living wage in Austin for a single person is $100,000, for a family it's $200,000, and that is well above the median household income of ~$90,000. Working class people are well below the median and aren't making $90,000 per year. These numbers are from an article in our local newspaper from this week. [0]
[0] https://www.statesman.com/news/local/article/austin-cost-of-...
I literally grew up in Austin. I understand the Austin housing market. I understand is not cheap. That doesn’t mean it’s not affordable.
According to your article:
> Based on those costs, MIT estimates the living wage for a family of four in the Austin metro area is $112,866 a year, or $49,322 for an individual.
That’s well below median household income.
> The organization created a “Household Survival Budget,” which includes housing, child care, food, transportation, health care, technology, taxes and miscellaneous expenses. According to the group’s estimates, the living wage for a family of four in Travis County is $102,096 with two kids in child care and $85,356 with no kids in child care. For a single adult, the survival budget is $39,924.
Again. When we are talking about the housing crisis in the Bay Area, we are talking about small condos costing $1M. Just forget having anything be closer to median income affordable for a family of four. In Austin that’s still possible. It’s not Milwaukee, but it’s a functioning housing market.
You can always work full remote. Or maybe you're an elderly retiree.
Elderly retirees seldom move. They’ve long paid off their mortgage and we keep property taxes extremely low so they are pretty much immune to the cost of housing. Once you put down roots in a community it’s hard to leave.
They also usually don't want to leave their established doctors. This is actually one of the reasons why we need mixed-housing options within neighborhoods so that elderly people can downsize into more manageable one and two bedroom apartments, condos, or duplexes etc without having to leave the neighborhood. Downsize into housing stock without stairs, without a large yard to upkeep, downsize into something smaller that would be more affordable to adapt for someone aging in place.
... but your own housing isn't any form of basic human right, its a luxury all around the world and always has been. Now I completely understand folks who come out of uni and see the salaries (sans faangs and generally devs and few other lucky positions), the prices and the emotions of missing out come easily.
But it isn't a right, just because you would like it. Same as I don't have a right to a car at price I would like, just because I live, by my choice, in rural environment close to nature. I desperately need one though for work commute, shopping, taking kids to school etc so thats as non-optional as accommodation to existence of my family. I can either suck up car's actual prices, move whole family so I don't need it or do similar choices in life to tackle that.
But car ain't a right. Same as your own accommodation, of course not a modest small apartment but a house, ideally close to work, amenities, schools, and costing peanuts. Literally what everyone else wants. Or am I incorrect in your expectations? Because if yes, its easy to accept cheap remote small old properties, those aren't expensive for above-average earners at all, anywhere.
Positive rights and negative rights. Societies can and often do guarantee rights that place an obligation on society and others to fulfill. In the US, we have a right to emergency medical care regardless of ability to pay. We have a right to a fair trial and representation. In NYC, the city is obligated to provide shelter for the homeless. Some thing that should be more universal. Not all questions can be answered by me right now.
> its a luxury all around the world
China has a 96% homeownership rate.
Kazakhstan 98%
Laos, Romania, and Albania 95%
Slovakia 93%
Russia 92%
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25.1:
> Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
So if I declare a right to immortality, then no one dies?
It's almost like those words are the product of useless bureaucrats, rather than an actual right.
That is a disingenuous counterexample.
It's really not.
What happens if everyone takes this declaration at face value and decides to be unemployed? Who pays for all the services that every person is entitled to?
Sure, so long as the balance involves not housing people which is pretty sick and twisted
I never claimed the balance will occur at a point that I like. This is just math, it’s not a political stance. If you want more homes, go build homes.
Then your point is meaningless. I (GP) was also pointing out the same equilibrium mechanic. The specific point I was making is that all evidence points to the equilibrium (in the US and elsewhere) being at a point that does not make housing easily attainable, and so becomes a political liability.
"Go build homes [beyond equilibrium]" is not a solution
I don’t understand your sentence. What’s the subject of the verb “housing.”
I think the subject is perhaps an implied "you", "us", or "society". Here's how I read it:
Sure, so long as involves (you / us / society) not housing people which is pretty sick and twisted
The subject is “people”. Parent is suggesting that the equilibrium point of housing supply and demand naturally leaves some people unhoused.
Which isn’t quite accurate as for example people prefer to move out of their parent’s homes while young adults but aren’t necessarily homeless if they don’t.
Basic housing is a necessity, but people also huge homes and 2nd homes etc. So housing policy should therefore be more complicated than simply subsidizing anything you can call housing. Capping the home mortgage tax deduction at ~median home prices for example is probably a better use of government funds.
That is the object of the sentence. He is asking who the subject is, in other words the thing or person that is doing the housing of the people. Is it the government? Is it you? I'm currently responsible for housing myself, which is annoying so I would prefer someone else take on this responsibility.
What do you do when that equilibrium point is hopelessly above what the average person can afford?
Not sure I buy the premise. Austin has a household $133k median income with a $435k median home price. It’s very affordable.
But, to make Austin more affordable still, you make it less expensive to build so that it’s profitable to build. Typical regulations that do this are: - Lower minimum sizing requirements - open zoning - raise height limits - make sure you don’t have unwarranted restricted fire codes (some places have elevator stairwell requirements that are insane) - make permitting easier or not required at all for some cases - no min parking requirements
Pretty sure as good as Austin is, they could easily reduce the costs by up to 30% (there are parts of the country with 50% the cost per sq ft for new construction).
That means there’s an invisible hand keeping prices up, or basically that the market is not free enough. That’s caused most of the time due to excessive regulation.
Another reason is high demand in locations where offer is limited due to physical limitations. There’s always demand to live in Broadway, and offer can never catch up due to its physical limitations.
> That means there’s an invisible hand keeping prices up, or basically that the market is not free enough.
Nowhere in the economic theory there is a proposition stating that prices should fall below affordable levels, given enough competition.
We are not talking about economic theory. We are talking about house prices. Time after time it has been seen that free-enough market can lower the prices to affordable levels.
Fair, but the thread has evolved into a discussion on the theory. We are definitely in the territory of theory when the invisible hand is mentioned.
I took "invisible hand" as a joke. The one with pattern : either (fairies/magic/invisible hand) or (sensible argument/observation here).
The relative abundance of land compared to other factors of production is, in fact, such a proposition. But when land is restricted through zoning laws this stops holding true. In other words, we must eliminate restrictions on production for the benefit of all people, but particularly the poorest.
I mean I would love to bulldoze that strip of forest next to Beverly Hills and put in a hog farm. It would provide tons of jobs.
We don't need economic theory for that it's just common sense. Humanity has been erecting structures to live in for approximately our entire existence. The modern economy is mechanized. How could a wood frame structure or a small high rise possibly be unaffordable if the market is functional?
Stop and think for a second. Someone in good health with a willingness to DIY and a sufficiently flexible schedule can literally build their own house from the ground up. It's a substantial time investment but not actually as much as you might think. Housing isn't very resource intensive compared to the rest of the modern economy.
The only possibilities I can imagine to explain unaffordable housing are broken regulations, critical levels of resource exhaustion, natural or man made disaster, and gross economic dysfunction.
It's regulations. But before you call them broken, some of it is safety. Safety standards keep rising with technology and the economy as people can afford more. Same with cars. There's also zoning restrictions in some places designed to prevent slums by requiring large residences. I guess that's happening here too.
Also living standards, ancients houses are dead simple and today could probably be built with usd 5k-10k in a couple months. But most people wont accept a home with no electrity, no lights, no AC, no indoor plumming, etc.
Yes that too. We're a bunch of spoiled brats complaining how much we have to work but it's only because lifestyle creep keeps pace with wealth.
The average person would need a MASSIVE investment in time to learn all the skills required in addition to investment in tools. Furthermore people won't lend joe random the funds required in the same fashion as they would for an actual finished house OR constructing a house via a contractor.
The invisible Hand may be monetary policy. The median household may simply no longer be able to afford the median home due to the continued wealth distribution shift brought on by interest rate targeting.
> That means there’s an invisible hand keeping prices up
Construction labor is quite expensive and so are the raw materials (and going up). Means there is a hard lower bound on cost and unfortunately it's not that cheap even if they built at zero profit (which nobody will).
> That means there’s an invisible hand keeping prices up, or basically that the market is not free enough. That’s caused most of the time due to excessive regulation.
No. Why do you guys fall so easily for the "regulation" cliche?
The answer is far easier: unwillingness to invest.
Why are there investment funds willing to burn through tens of millions in stupid stuff like NFTs or pets.com, but investing $10m on a 5 story apartment building that can get you a solid RoI of 20% is frowned upon?
Why the investment funds have to build the houses? Houses has been built/funded from zero by the future owners since forever, either individually or through cooperatives. That way, "investors" don't need a positive ROI, and they happily lose money overall if they get a home.
I know some people that are currently "willing to invest" in buying a ship container or two and transform it into a house to get costs down. The problem? Regulations don't allow them to put the container in their own property.
Using a shipping container is almost always a stupid plan compared to just putting up some wood. As much as I want to make zoning more flexible, I'm not in a rush to change that particular regulation.
Sounds arrogant to block someone else plan to have a home, just because you don't like it. And then claim regulations are not the problem, but lack of willing to invest.
If you think containers are a bad idea, don't buy one.
The demand for containers is rare and they don't really save money over building small out of reasonable materials. That specific regulation isn't blocking anyone from having a home.
The invisible hand is zoning. There's plenty of investment available but you literally aren't allowed to build what would be useful in most cases.
Sure you're free to go out into the middle of nowhere and build all sorts of wild stuff but there's no market for that because that isn't actually what anyone wants. You can't blame the investors when what people actually want to pay for has effectively been outlawed.
The good ol' invisible hand;
Literally an appeal to ignorance.
"What else could it be?"
OP used the term incorrectly. The term was used by Smith to refer to the fact that in the market, order occurs by the alignment of incentives of different people without any central planner.
This is theoretical MBA101 speech:
In reality, those ideas do not apply to the housing market, esp. as there is no real competition; and because the demand is absolutely inelastic (if we are already applying in MBA-wording universe)
Also, that this is true you can see if you compare to housing markets which "are more free than the Australian"
The regulation is single family zoning. Zoning makes it impossible to stack high rise apartment buildings in the areas that people want to live in.
People want to live in those areas because of the lower density. Remove that and they become much less desirable.
Of course demand is elastic.
Do you think, people will migrate to a city with an unaffordable housing (unaffordable for them)?
Unless you are living in North Korea, the competition is also there.
No, it is inelastic:
- inelastic means the demand is more or less independet of the price; you can't "just stop renting & living" if prices are going up, your options to bypass are highly limited -> therefore its called >inelastic<
You can "just stop renting" and move somewhere else.
Housing demand is less elastic than, let's say, potato demand, but it's not "absolutely inelastic" as you have said.
Good transit and road infrastructure also both make demand more elastic because the choice of where you can live without changing jobs expands.
In MBA101-bobos world this is true in theroy, in practice its not. (let me guess: You do not have children, yet, right?)
Thats always the biggest difference:
In theory, there is no difference between practive and theory - but in practice, there is ;-)
Where does this happen, in presence of a reasonably free market?
I can only think of extremely land-limited places like Monaco and Gibraltar. Where the answer is "not everybody should live in Gibraltar".
But the US has a lot of land. So much land that it can afford wasting it on endless sprawl of single family homes, which is the least efficient way of providing housing. Most Asian megacities would not be able to exist if they had as strict zoning principles as the US has.
Maybe you should also think about barriers such as "bans on boarding houses". This is what messes with poor people the most. A room in a house full of rowdy individuals sucks, but it is still a room. Possibly you may spend just a year there, then find something better. A tent in an encampment of rowdy individuals is strictly worse on all accounts except cost, and bouncing back from that is harder.
there are many things you can do, but essentially you want to make it profitable for builders to make houses at a lower price point, or give the average person more money. Some approaches (not all of which I'm endorsing):
- reduce restrictions around planning / construction / etc (because it takes time and expertise to comply, both of which cost money)
- find a way to bring in cheaper labor, or make it possible for construction companies to hire the same labor at a lower price. Maybe a subsidy, maybe reduced taxes, maybe relaxed labor laws
- add a subsidy for homes
- make your citizens more wealthy, so the price is no longer above their means
- outsource construction to a place that can build it more cheaply (eg, prefab homes)
> - find a way to bring in cheaper labor, or make it possible for construction companies to hire the same labor at a lower price. Maybe a subsidy, maybe reduced taxes, maybe relaxed labor laws
It's far easier than that: just have your regional/local government finance urban renewal projects that increase occupation density. You can even tie the project to the expansion of a public transportation system.
Won't the market fill the gap? For example, in Indonesia, "standard size" houses are mostly out of reach for new buyers (young generations), so they build houses farther away and/or smaller.
Remove parking minimums and work to address inequality? If that the case in Austin though?
it isn't
Why would you produce more bread, milk, eggs as prices fall? You would of course wait for the next-pig cycle - when the starving masses pay any price to you.
The answer- essentials can never be a non-government interferring market. This can be by creating artifical oversupply by buying up oversupply for foreign aid or bio fuels(food production). In the case of housing, this is by having the goverment continually construct housing.
The government intervention in the markets for agricultural products is because farmers are often an important political base, not to keep prices low for consumers. Without the intervention, prices would fall and supply would have to fall too, which would be good for consumers and bad for producers.
I'd argue that government intervenes in agriculture for supply-chain safety first and foremost.
Governments are concerned with this because no meat (or rice) on supermarket shelves during a supply-shock of any kind leads to rapid unplanned regimechange very consistently.
So basically every western government throws a few billions a year at local farmers so they stay (and this is not a US phenomenon, EU does the exact same thing). This is also less necessary for countries where labor is cheap.
This is arguably good for most consumers because essential calories being more affordable "on average" is not good enough, you'd typically rather pay (partially indirectly) a higher average to guarantee availability and avoid starving.
And the biggest reason is, learning from history, the instability of food prices destabilizes nations.
There have been many “bread riots.”
Bread is much cheaper today (at least relative to incomes) than in the days of bread riots.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring#Causes
Wheat is HEAVILY subsidized.
One of the main housing issues is government interference. People want to do things to get money from other people, including building houses for them to buy.
You're probably being downvoted because you're just assuming everybody knows what you mean. For somebody who doesn't it's going to be a nonsensical statement. The issue is that the government mandated banks enable easier access to loans for housing, as a means of resolving prior housing issues.
But what happens when you suddenly start giving a bunch of people the ability to go arbitrarily far into debt to buy something that they perceive as priceless (because housing, and most any other 'thing' tends to endlessly appreciate in value in an inflationary economic system)? Obviously prices skyrocket. The exact same thing happened with education for the exact same reason.
Sure, which is a different intervention than what's being discussed here.
Because home builders don't make money by buying and selling houses, they make money by building them and selling them.
This 1000x. Folks don’t get that the primary market != secondary market. Same as pre-IPO stock holder != IPO time buyer.
And... how is this relevant?
I'm not sure what you're trying to imply here. You should spell it out explicitly.
The difference is between buying and asset and producing an asset. Even if RAM costs are falling, it can still be profitable to produce more RAM, as long as the costs are far enough below the eventual sales price.
It's entirely different if you're buying the housing already built; there's no productive activity, you're just a rentier and do not benefit at all from falling housing prices.
The differences in interests between an asset holder and a productive builder are night and day.
> it can still be profitable to produce more RAM, as long as the costs are far enough below the eventual sales price.
Right... my point is that the costs are not far below the eventual sales price. That's why construction is slowing down.
And as mentioned several other times, it's actually not as simple as cost > sale price. It's margin > margin of alternative investments of similar scale and risk profile.
Dr Horton is the largest builder in the US. In q3 2025 they had a 21.8% gross margin.
As someone who is not versed in real estate, I don't see why your comment and parent couldn't both be true. Is Dr Horton building homes in Austin? Are the margins in Austin pulling down their average margin? That could explain high profit while dissuading new construction in Austin. *I don't know the answers to either of these questions, but of you do, that could provide some "proof" for either side of the argument, depending on what the answers are.
> Is Dr Horton building homes in Austin?
Yes, a ton.
https://www.drhorton.com/texas/austin
> That could explain high profit while dissuading new construction in Austin.
Given they're still building a ton in Austin, there doesn't seem to be a dissuasion for building there. I do not have any idea about their average margin in the Austin market versus other markets though, but if that was a major decider on whether to build or not the answer is they're still choosing to build.
You can look at new housing starts to see there is indeed a dissuasion to building there. That's literally the very first observation in this thread: construction rates are already falling significantly.
Dropping a bit from being one of the highest rates in the country still puts it at one of the highest rates in the country.
Looking at this data:
https://constructioncoverage.com/research/cities-investing-m...
If housing starts in Austin drop 15% for 2026, as some places are estimating, that puts Austin from 32,294 to 27,453 new homes added. It changes its national rank in this dataset from #6 to...#6.
… why would the relative ranking matter?
Your claim is that falling prices aren’t leading to less development.
That is both logically and empirically false.
The observation is simply that supply chases demand. As demand is satisfied, prices go down and supply creation slows down or even stops. It’s befuddling that you’re acting like this doesn’t apply here.
> why would the relative ranking matter?
Trying to compare competitiveness of various markets on where builders are going to invest their money building?
> It's margin > margin of alternative investments of similar scale and risk profile.
Homebuilders want to build homes. They'll build where its profitable for them to build. Lots of markets are facing downturns in new construction, but home builders are still choosing markets like Austin more than tons of other markets.
> Your claim is that falling prices aren’t leading to less development.
I never said such a thing, although I do think you're potentially thinking in too black and white on it. In fact, I think it was quite clear I was talking about comparing the Austin homebuilding market to other markets with my statement "Austin market versus other markets though".
> As demand is satisfied, prices go down and supply creation slows down or even stops
I think we're still far from demand actually being satiated in the Austin area. Its still the 6th most growing metro in the US, even with housing construction dropping an estimated 15% for 2026.
If builders were really heavily dissuaded from building in Austin, if margins were really that terrible compared to the rest of the country, why would it be the 6th largest spot of housing growth in the US? Shouldn't all those builders decide to invest elsewhere?
I agree, margins are probably less than they were or were projected to be compared to just a few years ago. And I agree that's probably one of the biggest drivers of new construction cooling a bit. But the questions I was answering were:
Is Dr Horton building homes in Austin?
Are the margins in Austin pulling down their average margin?
The answer to the first is obvious and easy. The answer to the second is more complicated, but if it was truly dragging down their average margin in any significant way wouldn't they have just stopped and invested in building in the higher margin areas?
Their gross margin is a lagging metric on houses they built 2/3 quarters ago, and applied for development permits ~4 quarters ago.
US homebuilder gross margins have been declining since 2023.
It was not clear that it was your point at all! Yes of course, gotta get your return on capital invested or the money goes elsewhere, probably into a REIT that invests in the existing assets and drives up prices even further. Because the demand for housing goes somewhere: either existing owners profit or the people building and alleviating the shortage profit.
Every single municipality in the US I'm familiar with has done everything they can to make it expensive to build and try to remove any profit margin from building. Which leads to capital moving towards piggybacking on the rentierism of the average homeowner, the people who control the policies that make it unaffordable to build.
How do you interpret "which compresses already-near-zero margin on real estate development" if not "the costs are already near the sale price?"
Not all new houses sell. Some become shadow inventory, some take 5+ years to sell. If you drive around new developments you can measure the fraction.
IIRC, Mountain House (near Tracy, CA) in the 2008-2010 crash was an example of a large new development that did not initially sell and was in serious danger of going zombie, and not having the new schools that had been promised to people moving in.
There is a difference but not in the way you think. Producing an asset is just buying other assets and labor. The difference with buying an asset is that a part of the assets you bought for production is illiquid for a term of the production. Generally you can only sell unfinished construction at a huge discount during most of the stages. So producing an asset is as same as buying an asset but with a lockout period, when you cannot sell.
But building cost > sale value is possible.
Or land ends up better value left as suburban house than developing up.
Or they build where sale cost - build cost is maximized. I.e. different city.
Governments need to build more housing. Make it bland so snobs can price discrimnate themselves to buy builders' homes. Why thrifts by the government home for value for money (and quality).
You think the government knows better how to identify land that is profitable than private builders? Why? Or is this one of those opinions based on "is OK for the state to pay for it because there's infinite money for my pet project"?
Because I grew up in the UK and there is a fuckton of government housing from 60s and 70s. It is ugly but it is housing people.
Government doesn't need to make a profit due to taxation.
Hello https://cep.lse.ac.uk/_new/publications/abstract.asp?index=1...
UK public housing is widely known for being shit. Unsafe, puts all the poor people together in a block. There's bunch of crime, and your kids will be likely to stay stuck there or go to jail due to bad influences.
Social housing should be sprinkled around it has been found. So nice example of what I was saying.
I would rather have more housing than less though. Government can build it at scale without worrying about profit.
And privately built appartment blocks are awful. One cracked in Sydney had to be evacuated. Concrete cancer and water ingress issues. It is concrete enshittification.
The question is not if, but who and how.
[flagged]
Please don't introduce an isolated tragedy to engage in ideological battle.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> like the fine example of Grenfell tower
The Grenfell tower fire was caused by a renovation intended to improve thermal insulation.
The renovation project used an external thermal insulation system that failed to meet both the manufacturer's recommendation and building regulation requirements. The particular system was actually banned in the UK while it was installed.
Tell me why you believe this has anything to do with public housing.
Because government has a unique pricing advantage, they get additional value from the houses they build in the form of all the positive externalities and property tax revenue. So projects that wouldn't be profitable for private builders might still be worth it to the government. So it should be both.
They're just gonna pay builders a sum anyway so it's not like they need to shoulder the full upfront cost anyway.
Do you have example of another area the government has higher profit margins than private industry? I can't. And if I was going to think a government would build housing, it would be in places that are cheap and I could mass house a bunch of people, not in hip expensive cities which is what people want when they talk about this.
But surely soviet style huge blocks of tiny t0 apartments all stuck together is a dream...
> Do you have example of another area the government has higher profit margins than private industry?
Public transit. Capturing enough money from fares is difficult, maybe impossible, but it's quite profitable if you can capture the value generated by the enabled economic activity and raised property values.
The same really goes for most infrastructure. There's a reason the government operates nearly all the roads. Also the fire departments and police stations
Likely the same for public schools and maybe universities. Having educated folks in your city increases productivity and revenues and incomes.
Yes and that reason is not because they are better at doing it profitably it's because they are commons that are wildly unprofitable to do well. If you let private industry build roads you'd have nice roads in cities and dirt in the rest of the country.
In this case what people want is the reverse. They want the government to build in Austin.
The government should be involved when market forces won't solve an issue, ie no market will make it profitable to send an ambulance to a town 3h away in the mountains. You don't need affordable housing in the center of Austin just because it's trendy though.
Isn't the US example: Medicare/Medicaid? It has far less costs (i.e. more of the money spend ends up with patient care) and has a reasonably good reputation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Nor...
This is a government literally putting their money in private companies instead of using it themselves (for idk schools or infrastructure for their people instead of giving it to nvidia and tesla). It's the most literal illustration of "private" beats "public" investment. Not sure what point you tried to make.
It's not necessarily prices falling here but the profitability of [demand] at [price]. Like if prices fall 10% but demand rises 20%, you would want to build more housing.
This is the beauty of the free market because it guarantees three things:
[1] Real estate is generally a good investment and will hold value or appreciate in the long term, because supply will adjust to demand shocks to rescue values
[2] If people want to live somewhere, houses will be built for them to live there
[3] Real estate developers and construction are solid, safe businesses with great unit economics because building may decrease prices, but may still increase demand
It's when you constrain and restrict a market that players have to adjust and then you get crazy scenarios
> Like if prices fall 10% but demand rises 20%
Not as a developer you wouldn't...
You already have razor thin margins. Prices going down 10% means you cannot get financing for your project.
Holding real estate is generally a good investment. Developing real estate actually is not.
> Real estate developers and construction are solid, safe businesses with great unit economics
No they are not lol
If you live in a magical fairy world where supply and demand are fixed, sure. In the real world, prices going down 10% leads to a surge in demand, and so you can fill more of your units. This leads to either equal or increased revenue, for the same construction (flat cost), which actually yields higher margins. This is why developers are usually concerned with occupancy rates, and prices are more a concern for homeowners.
There are only really 3 scenarios where prices are low and demand is low:
[1] There is a dramatic surplus of supply, in which case if a developer is trying to build they've not done research and probably should not get financing
[2] There is some other factor (usually high crime) in which case again, developer should do their research, and the market is operating fine
[3] You are developing super early and operating within incentives offered by the city, usually tax abatements, which drive down the carrying cost and make it a better investment.
Also important to note that in scenario [3] a smart developer will slowly release inventory to restrict supply to meet demand, and as demand grows, release more inventory at the newly raised price, continuing to do so as long as the tax abatements advantage the strategy. This is common in successfully developed areas e.g. Jersey City, and is fine as long as broad scale collusion doesn't occur
Can you define razor thin? Grocery stores have very small margins, as little as 1%.
Homebuilders make at least an order of magnitude more on a very expensive item.
> Grocery stores have very small margins, as little as 1%.
Looking at the Kroger 2024 Annual report shows that they have 22.3% gross margin . they pay dividends, had a stock buy back, etc so its entirely possible that they had a very low margin but gross margin seems to be similar to a home builder.
Sales $ 147,123
Merchandise costs $113,720
Rent, Depreciation, Amortization $655
Gross profit $32,748
for a gross margin of 32.7/147 = 22%
The net margin of around 1.5% seems more relevant: the gross margin is just the revenue minus the cost of good sold plus cost of transportation. The net margin is the money you have left after paying things like Rent, employee wages, electricity, taxes, interest on debt.
Grocery stores don't require millions to billions of dollars of capital to execute each new transaction.
So it's not the margin itself but actually the spread between the margin and what investors could get by investing in alternatives. Real estate investment opportunities are often measured by their advantage (measured in fractions of a percentage, .2% advantage being considered solid) over 10 Year Treasuries or S&P 500 returns.
Real estate developers do often actually lose money, but the more salient boundary condition is whether they can get financing for a project, where they have to clear a bar well above the "just make >$0" bar.
> Grocery stores don't require millions to billions of dollars of capital to execute each new transaction.
Neither do homebuilders, because homes don't cost millions to billions to build (high end custom homes can cost millions, but that's not what we're talking about here).
> So it's not the margin itself but actually the spread between the margin and what investors could get by investing in alternatives. Real estate investment opportunities are often measured by their advantage (measured in fractions of a percentage, .2% advantage being considered solid) over 10 Year Treasuries or S&P 500 returns.
Okay? So they have an advantage over alternatives, which means higher profits. And a .2% advantage is not considered solid, or meaningful in any way without a lot of missing context.
> Real estate developers do often actually lose money, but the more salient boundary condition is whether they can get financing for a project, where they have to clear a bar well above the "just make >$0" bar.
Many companies often lose money, due to incompetence or bad luck. The industry as a whole has very healthy margins.
Even a small (~10 home) development, of which we need hundreds of thousands, will require millions in financing. And as the development gets smaller and requires less financing, the economics get a bit worse due to ~fixed cost of land acquisition, development, and infrastructure/utilities.
> Many companies often lose money, due to incompetence or bad luck
One of those signs of incompetence or bad luck is building a bunch of new supply into a market with falling prices, in which case you will find yourself not among those with healthy margins ;)
> [1] Real estate is generally a good investment and will hold value or appreciate in the long term, because supply will adjust to demand shocks to rescue values
Real estate is NOT supposed to be a good "investment" and only became so because the government started propping it up with bank bankstops, zoning, NIMBY, redlining, etc. If your pricing is working correctly, real-estate should be close to zero-sum.
Austin, in particular, had several nasty bust cycles where real estate prices tanked after overbuilding which is precisely what kept the cost of living under control. Alas, that is a thing of the past after 2008 when everybody realized that the federal government will backstop the banks "Real estate number must always go up! Brrrrr!"
For nearly every homebuyer, a home is the largest purchase they will ever make and the bulk of their net worth. It needs to be a good long term investment that at least reasonably paces with inflation, otherwise you are losing money by buying a home and everyone has to rent and then you have feudalism with extra steps.
The good news is this is totally fine with keeping cost of living under control and overbuilding, because prices will go back up over time. Most people aren't going to own their home until the 30 year mark so it really is a much, much longer term investment than anything like overbuilding or other factors can reasonably affect.
The problem is really that people started seeing 2x-10x returns on homes and started treating that like the norm. That is not a 'good investment' that is a 'money printer,' and in most cases the government does not want to safeguard that behavior, but it's hard not to when those same people panic like crazy if their home only goes up 2% in value in a year or, god forbid, decreases in value for a year.
There is really no good solution to that mentality, if there really was one then Wall Street would have uncovered it ages ago to get more people into long term ETFs.
> a home is the largest purchase they will ever make and the bulk of their net worth
That's bad and a central part of the problem.
I accept that my car is depreciating in value every year I own it, and but I need a car so I buy one. I don't need it to be a good long term investment, despite it being a major purchase.
The entire mindset of treating a family's home as being an investment class rival to bonds and equities is a relatively new phenomenon, and one that's clearly been detrimental to many.
> > a home is the largest purchase they will ever make and the bulk of their net worth
> That's bad and a central part of the problem.
Why? Or to ask in a different way, how could it not be?
For nearly all regular working people, there is nothing they will ever buy that costs more in labor and materials than a home. So of course it will be the most expensive purchase most people ever make. How could it not be?
A home costs 10-20x more than a car, you are being incredibly disingenuous by boiling them both down to “major purchase.”
> It needs to be a good long term investment
No, it needs to be roughly zero sum but only over very long timescales. Anything else is a disaster.
If housing is a "good investment", it attracts rampant speculation and concentration of ownership to the capital class. You need regular wipeouts to force the speculators out of the market (doubly so if they are buying on leverage).
If housing is a "bad investment", people abandon the real estate and you get blight which becomes a self-perpetuating cycle downward.
Things need to be kept balanced in housing so that people can use it to be a place to live. We are currently in the middle of seeing the dysfunction that happens when being "shelter" is overshadowed by being an "investment".
It seems to me that the market will select for urban sprawl though which is a negative for society but has the highest margin. E.g. Houston suburbs, miles and miles of cheap to fab single family homes that turn it into a suburban hell scape where you have to drive everywhere.
I don't think the free market is giving the promises you say it is - supply isn't elastic for real estate if nobody's building because there's no margins. Demand can be anywhere really.
I like to look to Tokyo for an example. Small lots, extremely predictable regulations (that are still strict enough to ensure a safe living situation), fast approvals, mean it's much faster and easier to throw up an 8-10 story apartment than say downtown Austin, and so even today they keep doing it despite land in Tokyo being very expensive. And, no sprawl.
They can throw up 8-10 story apartments in Tokyo despite land being very expensive because they tear them down and rebuild them after 20-30 years. Also, Tokyo outside of a few areas isn't that tall, it is definitely dense, but 3-4 story tall building dense (those homes are also torn down and built anew ever 20-30 years, so construction buzzes in Tokyo).
It would be better if you considered new actual living capacity in Tokyo rather than just new constructions.
I believe the market in the US selects for urban sprawl because it's usually subsidized by the dense urban core. Suburban areas often don't generate enough tax revenue to support their own infrastructure and services.
Why are you accrediting Houston to the free market rather than Tokyo?
Houston doesn't have zoning laws, Tokyo does.
Generally speaking, freer markets seem to lead to worse outcomes overall.
Have you seen Tokyo?
I've lived in Tokyo and Houston. Tokyo is infinitely more livable and the housing is still relatively affordable. In Houston even if you can get a new place it'll be clapboard garbage that's a one and a half hour drive from work.
Average home price in Tokyo is 1.5x that of Houston. Average wage in Houston is 1.5x that of Tokyo. So the data doesn't support your post unless you really really love sushi and arcades.
There is the possibility that the government builds housing, since the government doesn't have to care about direct profits and can include the overall economic effects of affordable housing in its calculations. We don't expect much direct profits from roads either, but we keep building more and more of them.
That only makes sense if there is a positive externality from housing. Is there?
Yeah, there's no positive benefit to making sure people have housing. That's why every day when I walk home from work, I have to think really hard about if I'm going to go home today, or just hang out under the overpass and panhandle.
Of course, many.
To be sure, are you asking if society does better when its people are homed vs. homeless? Because that seems like a question with an obviously-yes answer.
The concept of externality has a specific definition and you’re not addressing housing in those terms.
I'm not sure "externality" means what you think it means.
Society being better off in many ways (more productive society, happier society, less crime-ridden society) is an example of multiple positive externalities resulting from its people being homed vs. homeless.
Why shouldn't housing, like any other goods, be as cheap as possible for as high quality as possible?
Do you think that’s what government produced goods gets you? If so, shouldn’t the government make everything?
I was saying in general, privately or government built housing, not that government in particular should be making housing. I meant that housing market seems to be highly anticapitalist in many ways valuing the opposite of what a good should be.
Because "cheap" government housing has never been "high quality" in the history of the world. Those two properties are antithetical.
Humans don't have a ton of preferences for the electricity they consume or the water they drink, just that it exists. It's a commodity, so a good task for government. Housing is not an undifferentiated commodity and is subject to extreme variances in preference. Markets do differentiation and preference matching infinitely better.
Hence why Government housing always takes the form of a utilitarian blight on the community with giant towers of tiny apartments with tiny windows...doesn't matter if its communist Russia or the richest capitalist city on earth (NYC), all government housing results in the same outcome.
Assuming someone will chime in with some "halo" government housing project in the nordics that represents like 0.01% of the government stock there but socialists will use as propaganda. However, it's important to remember these are not cherry picked examples, they are median examples:
[1] NYC government housing: https://www.brickunderground.com/sites/default/files/styles/...
[2] Russian government housing: https://i.redd.it/twz37r739xse1.jpeg
Pretty sure France and Singapore both have quite successful and high quality public housing projects.
France has similar issues as the US housing projects from the 70s (creating ghettos), these are not places that people choose to live. And yes, all governments put up halo projects that you see in the press that do not represent the average, please link me to them claiming I'm wrong, and I will say yes, this halo project designed by a famous architecture firm does look nice! Now show me the median late-1970s constructed French public apartment.
Singapore is different because they eliminated the "cheap" part. Singaporean HDB flats are expensive, have extremely long wait times (you're stuck for life when one comes up), while still being super tiny. Fertility rates are 0.87 there (replacement rate is 2.1). The domestic population is literally disappearing itself. I'm sure highly regulated tiny housing stock and development policy has no influence on family size though...
The floor space and the proximity to neighbors are perfectly valid reasons to not prefer apartments. Calling them a "blight" is bs, unless you had in mind as your ideal something like historic parts of London because rows of identical mansions in a suburb looks to me no different than rows of vertically stacked apartment blocks. They are both clean, geometric and "industrial" looks.
> Because "cheap" government housing has never been "high quality" in the history of the world. Those two properties are antithetical.
I've lived in military on-base housing. It can be just fine ... or sometimes not.
Not just government made housing but any housing. Housing market needs don't seem to have as much wide fragmentation as eg most of the Western world seems quite happy with suburb style housing and most asia seems content with apartment though aspiring to owning houses.
I am saying just like any other capitalist endeavour, where things that barely existed or were quite expensive many years ago eventually reached a point where both the price became so low and quality so good that it became a mindlesss thing eg sawblades. And housing for whatever reason has been an extremely anticapitalist market. Even if we take the exact same houses people want today, their execution seems far from optimized. Think of something like precutting all the timber and sheets at a factory and doing some light adjustment and fitting on site, developing new materials that are cheaper or easier to work with tools, etc there are countless angles of attack.
In optics for example, it was mostly this rather bespoke work by a few artisans and people back then might have said this needs a fine touch that can't be done on mass scale. And then Carl Zeiss emerged. I feel housing is in the pre Carl Zeiss era.
EDIT: Neither example looks bad to me. The russian looks denser but both look clean and well organized. It doesn't at all look like blight to me, any more than a grid of houses in a suburb does. It's clean and geometric just like rows of houses in suburbs. If you like one but have a problem with another, I think you are trying to get offended deliberately.
The government housing in communist countries didn't actually have tiny windows, compared to the housing stock available at the time.
Because they don’t care about profits, they always end up overpaying and taking way longer time than necessary.
And who pays for that? The whole society: Either the government raises taxes, gets more in debt, or they print more money driving inflation up.
The most basic commodity, food, is a great example. The moment the government has ever step into controlling production of food, we’ve only seen subpar performance and starving people as a consequence. Ultimately killing millions (USRR, China, Korea…)
> The moment the government has ever step into controlling production of food, we’ve only seen subpar performance and starving people as a consequence.
You might be surprised to hear how heavily government directed and subsidized food production is in the USA.
This is nonsense. Agricultural subsidies are the largest item in the EU budget. Nobody is starving in Europe
That is a good idea that requires careful attention to make sure it has near-perfect execution. Because we do that, and they are called 'the projects'.
I’ve seen some housing projects around my city that are actually quite nice. They didn’t end up being shabby because they were built poorly. They were shabby because they were reserved for the very poor and, consequently, became extreme concentrations of poverty and crime. This makes people unwilling to invest in maintenance and continued improvement of their homes.
If the government just went on a building binge of housing to be sold at market rate, or even set an upper bound before qualifying to buy them at a middle class income, it’d work out fine. That’s basically how Singapore does it only they couple it with somewhat aggressive policies to encourage people to downsize their living situations once they’re empty nesting to free up family dwellings for people with families. We probably wouldn’t need to do that second part since we’re not a claustrophobic island, and could just count on natural turnover.
I'm under the impression that more supply=lower rents, even if execution is not perfect, but I'm not an economist.
Sure if that's all you care about, it will do that. At the price of making people's lives miserable due to substandard housing if it's done wrong. I said it's a good idea, let's just make sure we do it right.
> At the price of making people's lives miserable due to substandard housing if it's done wrong.
I'm curious to see how Austin will do in the near future by that same metric. More people can afford a place that will let them pay rent, although now at least some of those people will be living in someone else's basement or garage. These may not be very nice places to live, but they may be all some people can afford.
They've also removed the regulation requiring a second way out of a burning 5 story building. Austin faces an increasing number of red flag warnings and has the 5th highest wildfire risk in the US. It remains to be seen what removing that second exit route will cost in the charred corpses of families.
Austin is also cutting corners on permitting which is great news if that was all needless red tape that can be rushed or skipped without cost, but if new apartments built today are (or soon become) deathtraps due to lax code enforcement that could be a major problem down the road.
Austin has already lowered rents which is great, but hopefully it was also done right and it doesn't result in more people being forced into substandard housing or increased deaths. As long as it doesn't, other cities should look into trying some of the same things Austin has done.
They've also removed the regulation requiring a second way out of a burning 5 story building.
This has been well studied. Requiring two stairways significantly increases costs, constrains layouts, and is not actually safer: https://www.pew.org/-/media/assets/2025/05/single-stair_repo...
The Center for Building in North America has been aggressively pushing for these single stairwell reforms all over the country. Stephen Smith, writer of that report, is the founder of that group as well as the founder of Quantierra a real estate tech company.
The real estate industry is in huge support of this particular reform, and they stand to massively profit from it, but the people who are strongly against it include The International Association of Fire Fighters, the National Association of State Fire Marshals, The International Association of Fire Chiefs, and The National Fallen Firefighters Foundation. These are the people who are most informed about the dangers and risks involved and in what safety measures are required to save lives and fight building fires effectively.
The report itself does make some very good arguments like how much safer modern construction has become, and also some rather weak ones (for example it ignores the poor quality of data on fire and smoke related fatalities in the US, as well as important differences between the US and Europe) and I'm not even saying that single stairwell buildings can't ever be made safely, but if safety really wasn't a problem we wouldn't see a lack of support from firefighters who are the actual experts in this space. Until they are convinced of the safety of these reforms real estate developers are going to have a hard time convincing me.
Here are a couple of their objections:
https://www.iaff.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/JointStateme...
https://cityclerk.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2025/25-0247_pc_IAFF...
Sounds like a horrible attempt they rightly resist 100%. Hopefully they prevail.
Is substandard housing worse than no housing?
There are multiple city and state housing facilities in my area that are perfectly fine. They are not huge or luxurious but they're safe, clean, and well maintained.
When the options ar homelessness or subsidized housing, subsidized housing is absolutely the best option, which is backed up by decades of data.
"When the options ar homelessness or subsidized housing, subsidized housing is absolutely the best option, which is backed up by decades of data."
Not quite. That's only true if you are housing people who ended up homeless due to bankruptcy or similar reasons (lost jobs, medical issues, etc). If you have people who are homeless due to sever addiction, you just end up with more OD deaths. You have similar issues with people with sever mental illness.
The homeless are not a monolith and different parts of the population need different solution unless you really really don't give a f*ck about them.
Not really? "The projects" are a consequence of a very specific approach to government housing construction.
There's an alternative approach which mirrors the public healthcare concept of "public option". Instead of restricting government housing to means tested individuals or specific low income populations, you develop a public competitor to drive prices down and to eat costs in regions where housing is needed but the economics just don't make sense yet.
i.e. the US Postal Service model. It works extraordinarily well as long as you don't repeatedly capture and handicap the org/agency (like has been done to the USPS). And even with the USPS despite being severely handicapped it still provides immense value by driving prices down while maintaining the essential service of last mile delivery.
A similar approach could be envisioned for a public construction agency.
Any program created by the US government can be captured and handicapped, like has been done to the USPS.
Also, the Postmaster General was on Capitol Hill today saying how this time next year the service won’t be able to afford delivering to all addresses in the US.
> Any program created by the US government can be captured and handicapped, like has been done to the USPS.
Agreed but even despite that they generally are a net positive.
> Also, the Postmaster General was on Capitol Hill today saying how this time next year the service won’t be able to afford delivering to all addresses in the US.
The same postmaster general who is a longstanding board member at FedEx.
And the US Post was still an extremely effective agency for well over 150 years, only truly beginning to become shackled when Nixon transformed it into the USPS in the 70s, and even then it retained most of its efficacy until the 2000s and 2010s when it truly began to fall onto its last legs.
But also despite being shackled the way it currently is, it's not exactly nontrivial to reform it provided there was any political momentum towards doing so. So it may get its legs back in the days following this administration.
It doesn't matter whether prices are going up or down, it matters if the price is more than the cost to build.
No, not really.
It matters whether the margin is higher than other investment opportunities of similar scale and risk profile.
Already, the answer is very often no. In Austin, the answer will increasingly be no. That means people will not finance new construction, so if demand continues to grow it will outstrip supply and prices will go back up until the margin on new construction exceeds that of alternative investment opportunities of similar scale and risk profile.
I would expect the development of Austin to continue until market equilibrium and then pause. Decreasing margin does not mean equilibrium. Obviously austin is not at equilibrium because we still have price data on developer activity and that would be near zero if developers couldn’t make returns given risk etc.
I guess I don’t see where we disagree?
I mean... that is pretty much what we're seeing:
Austin new housing starts (approx per month):
2019: 1416
2020: 1504
2021: 1495
2022: 2083
2023: 1415
2024: 916
2025: 900
2026: 481
The problem here is that the market obviously does not have perfect information, limited mechanisms to coordinate, and significant lead time. It seems pretty much baked in at this point that many of the projects currently underway will complete into a negative market and (assuming Austin remains somewhat desirable) a whole lot of developers will be wiped out. This will stop development until prices rise again, probably back to a level where housing is quite expensive again relative to local wages.
Yes really, that deeper understanding is exactly what is meant when somebody says "the cost to build is lower than the price." If we're going to be pedantic, you're ignoring the huge amounts of uncertainty on costs that are inherent to any project, the amount of risk versus the expected profit.
And indeed that amount of uncertainty: will I be allowed to build eventually? How long will I have to pay interests on assets before I'm allowed to build? Can I actually build what's specified in code or will discretionary processes arbitrarily change what I'm allowed to do, 18 months into the project?
> Yes really, that deeper understanding is exactly what is meant when somebody says "the cost to build is lower than the price.
It demonstrably is not what people understand it to mean to "the cost to build is lower than the price." The cost to build can be well below the sale price and development still be a totally uninvestable activity.
Your explanation of fluctuations in supply and demand are not very revelatory. Everything being in flux at all times is kind of an elementary fact of life.
It's clearly not elementary if people here believe that you can just keep building until prices collapse, and people will still keep building.
The question is whether the market achieves equilibrium at a point where 1) developers can get financing to build profitably, and 2) units can be sold at a broadly attainable price to the local market.
The answer appears to be no because the cost of inputs is so high. No one here is talking about directly reducing the cost of inputs. They believe that instead developers will just continue to build units that they sell at a loss, or at least investors will continue to invest in construction that returns less than the S&P 500 or 10 Year Treasuries (they won't).
As long as the cost to build housing is less than the revenue from selling it, why wouldn't you?
It's not like homebuilders in Austin flee for North Carolina when the margins shift slightly.
it doesn't matter if prices are falling or rising, it only matters how the ROI of building compares to other investment opportunities
we can also make it cheaper to build. easing taxes on imported materials, bringing in more skilled labor, expediting permits, and even direct subsidies like tax breaks
> it doesn't matter if prices are falling or rising, it only matters how the ROI of building compares to other investment opportunities
Correct, which it basically doesn't in Austin, which is why construction is decelerating.
> we can also make it cheaper to build
Yep, this is the only structural solution. The "just add supply" runs into the problem of price equilibriums. The reality is the input costs of building housing basically guarantees that housing is hard-to-attain for any local market. We need to address the cost of inputs. Temporary reductions in price are temporary and the market will self-correct back to restrict supply (as we're seeing in Austin) until prices go back up to being hard-to-attain.
The problem is it can't drive prices below what the free market would dictate?
Talk about praising with faint damns.
No, the problem is that the free market in advanced economies appears to dictate a price point for housing that is unattainable for broad swaths of society.
Classic case of Baumol's disease, which is not solved by "well duh we just gotta build more." People will not "just build" enough to solve the problem because they won't "just build" beyond equilibrium (for long).
No, the problem is the government has artificially restricted housing supply and this has driven up prices. It's not a market failure, it's a government failure.
I think it's not helpful to talk of "government failure" as long as democratic principles are upheld.
You could call it "voter failure" instead. But I'd argue that many of those voters are just acting in their own best interest, because they already own a home and more construction/housing supply does not help them at all.
Some part you might be able to blame on the system, because I'm pretty confident that owners of at least one home are politically overrepresented literally everywhere (just look at home ownership percentages of politicians compared to citizens).
I personally think a lot of this is just the natural consequence of an aging population, where young-people-concerns are basically "underrepresented" by design.
Of course it's helpful, unless one has the ridiculous idea that democracies can't make mistakes.
Yes, voters are acting in their own interests, or at least what they perceive to be their interests at the time. This can lead to bad outcomes. It's why we have things like the Bill of Rights, which restricts what even a majority can impose.
The idea that voters are always right would also seem to eliminate the possibility of arguing for change. Voters are responsible for current policy therefore it must be right, so how could change be good?
> The idea that voters are always right would also seem to eliminate the possibility of arguing for change. Voters are responsible for current policy therefore it must be right, so how could change be good?
I'd argue the exact opposite. If voters are wrong, and cause bad outcomes, why would you blame "the government", when it's clearly voters being stupid? And I'm not arguing for "no change"-- the fix is to vote better next time. I think it is only fair to directly blame "the government" in a democracy if it either acts against its voters, or is otherwise incompetent, hypocritical or corrupt.
I'd argue that the largest "problems" government causes with housing are institutionalized NIMBYism and more generally policies to prop up housing values.
This happens (mostly) because (many) voters want it.
To fix this, we need more votes from people that suffer most (i.e. young voters, which notoriously don't) and more awareness/priority/empathy from all voters (ideally even the ones not directly affected).
I strongly dislike blanket blaming "the government" for issues like this, because I feel it kinda disenfranchises people.
I'd argue that any policy problem that wouldn't be solved via re-election is never really a "government problem", it's a "people problem" (voters being stupid) or an "incentives" problem ("vote cost" being compensated indirectly by political donations, media attention or similar).
IMO shaping public opinion is part of the government’s job description.
The point is that housing would be cheaper, not that it would become dirt cheap.
There are some inherent costs to new housing. Work of professionals involved, cost of materials, compliance with all technical regulations, some profit for the developer, connection to infrastructure. Let us mark this unavoidable cost by C. It is a component of the current prices.
Then there is the component N, which is deadweight cost caused by zoning and non-technical regulations. I am not saying that it should be 0, but it is in our interest that it is kept in check, maybe 20 per cent of C. As of now, in some places, it well may be 120 per cent of C, even though it is really hard to calculate.
This component of the final price directly enriches no one, it is pure friction caused by special interests of various parties that don't want to see any new housing either near them, or anywhere (landlord cartels that hate competition - indirect enrichment).
Even C is now a formidable figure. Modern homes are basically industrial robots, they are much more complicated from the inside than they were 100 years ago. But there isn't really a reason why they should be horribly expensive.
If as a regular office person you can buy a home for, say, 5x your annual income, it is not unaffordable. That is well, just normal. Not completely everyone is expected to own their home.
The problem is that nowadays, the multiplier in many places isn't 5x, but 10x or 12x. That is just way too much. And given that C cannot be easily massively reduced (unless some sort of massive robotization of construction work happens), you really need to attack N.
This is an empirical claim. It looks like new monthly permits are down from ~4k a month in 2021-2022 to ~3k a month. They're still up significantly from before 2020. The building boom has slowed but it's still elevated. Not particularly close to zeroing out.
The data is here: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AUST448BPPRIVSA.
Not to mention, Austin could just make it cheaper to build to offset lower sell prices. Gruber et al estimate permits are 50% of an LA home's price. Fix permitting and rent goes down 50% by your assumptions that developers build until margins are 0.
Assume austin is only half as bad as LA, a 25% rent decrease would be incredible
Gruber's paper: https://evansoltas.com/papers/Permitting_SoltasGruber2026.pd...
> Gruber et al estimate permits are 50% of an LA home's price
That is not what Gruber shows. The 50% figure is that there's a permit adds a 50% premium on the value of raw land. In other words, the permit cost is "only" 33% of the cost of the permitted raw land. That's significant and a big problem, but very very far from "50% of on LA home's price."
But yeah structurally the solution is indeed to reduce the cost of production. Which if your 50% figure was correct, would be huge. But it's not correct.
Building codes also push prices higher. In the EU, the recent regulations force developers to build luxury buildings as a baseline, at a high cost.
Not all buildings require elevators, intelligent thermostats, triple-panel windows or electric car plugs. Especially when you are experiencing a housing crisis.
Of its still profitable to do so, considering opportunity costs for the capital, firms will continue to build. However, it's so expensive to build that these project wind up not becoming bankable very quickly. I think that's the underlying issue that needs to be addressed.
Correct -- this is what I'm pointing to.
The problem is the cost of inputs. Classic Baumol's disease. We cannot escape Baumol's disease by just saying "hurrr durr just gotta get people to finance projects into a market with falling prices!"
Why would you build more cars as prices fall?
What do you think homebuilders do? Just close up shop when the market dips?
The answer is there are companies in the business of building homes. If there is profit to be made, they will keep building. Most of the issues we have today are caused by extreme and dysfunctional regulatory regimes that destroy the return on investment by extending the process out. More time sitting on the property before building = lower investment return, and other investments end up making more sense.
> What do you think homebuilders do? Just close up shop when the market dips?
Uhh yes. Downward price pressure is a business-destroying event in real estate development. The amount of risk developers take on with each project is pretty incredible actually.
> Why would you build more cars as prices fall?
For one, there are advantages to scale. That is hardly true (and in many cases the opposite is true -- diseconomies of scale) in real estate development.
> The answer is there are companies in the business of building homes. If there is profit to be made,
No. The question is whether there is more profit to be made from building homes than from investing e.g. in the S&P500 or US 10yr Treasuries. Otherwise investors don't finance new home construction. We are already in an environment where real estate financing is simply not a great option compared to other ways to invest money, and so construction will slow as prices go down (which is, as stated, already happening in ATX).
That is exactly what the rest of my message said, had you read it.
https://www.nahb.org/news-and-economics/press-releases/2025/...
8.7% net profit during a period of explosive appreciation across the nation.
Normal net profit is about 7%.
S&P 500 has been returning more than twice that annually over the past 10 years.
That is how real estate financing decisions get made.
The prices may be falling, but if you can still make more profit (per unit time) building in Austin than elsewhere (due to less red tape or more local builders or whatever), building will occur.
No, it's absolutely possible that building as a whole is not a good use of capital. There is not some fixed quantity of people-who-must-build and dollars-that-must-be-spent-building.
If the incentive disappears, the people and dollars disappear. And they have to clear a much higher bar than merely being profitable. Because it's a capex heavy industry, development must compete against other ways to invest capital (like S&P 500 or the US 10-Year).
> The problem is: why would you build more housing as prices fall?
Profitability is not black-and-white. Real estate investments can still be profitable if prices fall.
There are different types of real estate markets too. Working class homes in suburbs are not the same market as upper middle class apartments in an urban center.
A very interesting type of investment is high-density housing in catchment areas of new public transportation hubs. Those tend to be so profitable that they can even finance the investment in the public transportation service.
All you need is willingness to invest.
In my state, or in my capital city, you say this, but the real estate developers are generally the top 1% in town. If they're running on razor-thin margins, I'm not seeing it - I am seeing them on my Facebook (being friends with the wife of the mayor) doing things like taking their kids on vacation to the French Riviera, Switzerland, Tokyo, the Maldives... well, alongside the City's Planning Committee commisioners and their families...
Highly restrictive development rules, often sold as ways to stick it to those very rich developers, are precisely what make them so rich. Only those with huge amounts of capital to spend can make it through the gauntlet of the rules and have big enough asset portfolios to stay in the game. They can bank land for decades, speculating on the best time to take their profits, all while others live through shortages of housing and do not have access to that land.
Those very processes that make it hard to develop keep out the scrappy up-start competition, the contractors that could be building houses all over if they had enough lawyers/planners/specialists to help them get through the system.
Look, for example, at LA, which has super super restrictive rules on what can be developed where, and has huge amounts of discretion at the political level, so that NIMBYs can block what they want. The only people who can build housing are developers who bribe the politicians (there was a somewhat recent arrest in LA on this, involving literal bags of cash, by the FBI).
Having simple, straightforward rules that are completely objective is the only way to try to flatten out the playing field. However such rules get shot down by NIMBYs precisely because they don't want the shady developers profiting off apartments! It's all highly ironic.
Well you see, we clearly need to armor the parts of the planes that have bullet holes in them upon return!
I get what you mean, but I doubt corruption is good for building good housing
Corruption isn't prevented by regulations; its enabled by regulations. That's the flaw in your thinking. If a market's only players are really rich, there are 2 possible reasons for that: 1) the market is really good and more players should be entering or 2) the market is highly regulated which prevents more players. Guess which happens a lot more than the other in RE development?
PS Most of the people who build houses aren't very rich, just the CEO/big boss who owns the entire company is. The other 99.9% of people are middle class/blue collar.
> just the CEO/big boss who owns the entire company is. The other 99.9% of people are middle class/blue collar
Yup. I did some IT integration work for a man who owned a local construction company and was very effectively vertically integrating it. In addition to their other work he'd buy land, personally, his company would build at cost prices, and his office staff first informally and then more formally became property managers.
Thats how supply demand works right? Its a stable equilibrium. When supply is low, prices rises to entice supply, supply increases to match demand, prices fall, the rate of increase of supply falls as well until supply approaches to meet demand. It prevents oversupply. If supply slips below demand again prices will rise to pull it back up
Theres no problem here. Thats how the system should work
To some degree yes. However, the problem I'm pointing to is that the equilibrium in several developed economies (esp US) seems to be at a level that makes housing unattainable for a huge number of people.
I.e. Probably due to Baumol's disease, there is no price at which it is both 1) profitable to invest in constructing new housing and 2) makes housing broadly attainable to people.
This is a problem. There are a lot of goods (like a platinum-bodied iPhone) that cannot achieve both (1) and (2). However, unlike all of these other goods, housing is a necessity with an extremely high floor on demand.
> already-near-zero margin on real estate development
Why is the margin so low when the prices are so high? Is it because the value of housing is already priced into the value of land?
> The problem is: why would you build more housing as prices fall?
Why would you want to? When you stop being able to sell more houses, that's the sign that you've built enough.
Yes, the prices of inputs are very high and rising. Mainly land and labor, but materials aren't cheap either. Housing is also one of the few thing we need at massive scale but which has diseconomies of scale. The more you develop an area, the more expensive it gets to develop it further.
How can real estate have zero margin when housing rises exponentially in price?
No other good behaves like this. A midsize sedan didn't increase in price (in real term) over time, while new cars improved.
New houses don't really improve that much over time, yet are getting more more and more expensive.
Why is that?
> How can real estate have zero margin when housing rises exponentially in price?
Well let's think about it...
It would suggest that costs are going up, correct?
What are the main costs? Land: Goes up alongside housing prices. Labor: Also goes up alongside housing prices.
Unlike cars, there are very few economies of scale in real estate development. In fact, due to the dynamic above, there are actually diseconomies of scale in housing development. The more you develop an area, the more expensive it gets to continue development.
We normally don't scale goods that have diseconomies of scale because, like we see in housing, they become unaffordable and cease to exist. Unfortunately, housing is a necessity, and so we must build it against increasingly disfavorable economics.
Same is true of healthcare and education. Other goods/services that have diseconomies of scale simply don't scale. That is not an option for housing, education, and healthcare.
The stock market has greater returns than housing by a lot
This is how markets balance. When there is under supply prices go up and incentivize production. When there is oversupply production goes down. Prices converge on a small premium to the price of production.
Correct, and the argument being made here is that the convergence point on "small premium to price of production" actually sits at "unattainable for an increasing proportion of Americans."
Similar to how the convergence point on price for a platinum-bodied iPhone converges at "unattainable for enough people to support its production" and it therefore doesn't exist.
The difference being, obviously, that society can hum along just fine without platinum-bodied iPhones and it cannot hum along without housing.
Maybe other real estate savvy people can help me understand this plus two other things I'm confused about in the housing crisis:
1. Houses are unaffordable for many Americans. To get houses to prices where they'd be affordable again would require a housing prices drop that would likely be, market-wide, significantly low enough to put a ton of people underwater on their mortgages. What is society/the government meant to do about that? Is it an insurmountable floor on how low we can get housing prices? That floor feels very close if so.
2. We've been promising the last five generations (or more) of Americans that a house is an Investment, capital I, an excellent place to keep your money. How do we overcome the political pressure to turn a house into a depreciating investment for the length of time required to get housing to be affordable again? What kind of politician would put their neck on the line to piss off every boomer and 75% of gen X and 30% of millennials, or whatever the house ownership distribution is?
There's a big difference between land prices and the building prices. When costs rise 5% per year for a house that's untouched, that's almost entirely the land price going up.
You can make housing cheaper by putting more houses on the same amount of land. In high cost areas, the price of land dominates the cost of housing.
Political pressure to change the investment nature of housing can come from various directions, for example establishing a land value tax, which eliminates the financial incentive to speculate on rising land prices by keeping people out of your area, redistributes all those unearned land rents to the population equally, as is only fair, and also results in a lot of people selling land to be redeveloped taht are otherwise hoarding it when the rest of society would be using it a lot better. Of course, in societies with high levels of land ownership, the voting public usually tries to vote away such extremely fair taxes.
Politically, we must stop prioritizing the views of homeowners at the local level. They already got their reward, massive unearned capital gains on their residence, there's no need to give them priority on land use over the general needs of society.
> Politically, we must stop prioritizing the views of homeowners at the local level. They already got their reward, massive unearned capital gains on their residence, there's no need to give them priority on land use over the general needs of society.
They are the majority of people in most areas, so it does make sense that they would be given priority in some ways.
The rest of your post is unsubstantiated vitriol, which isn't exactly convincing.
You quoted my vitriol to the homeowners, the rest is not vitriol, it's basic land economics.
> They are the majority of people in most areas, so it does make sense that they would be given priority in some ways.
In some ways sure. But in the ways that they are? Absolutely not, it's basic unfairness. The entire tax system is tilted in favor of home owners. We don't need to do that, we could make it more equal so that people with less wealth are not penalized.
It's not "basic land economics", it's your personal opinion about how things should be and whether you think current policies are fair.
The tax code does favor home ownership, because people want to support it. Less people will be able to afford their own home without that support, which seems to be the opposite of what you want.
#1 is the symptom, #2 is the problem.
High levels of home ownership combined with "local control" and "democracy" enables the "haves" who already own homes to weaponize government to keep supply low and home values high. Zoning restrictions, building codes, taxes, and other government tools are brought to bear to support this. The "have nots" don't have a chance.
Austin seems to be a counter-example when they "instituted an array of policy reforms" in 2015 that showed great results. Sadly the key may be appealing to the greed of existing homeowners. Changing zoning to allow tall apartment buildings where single family dwellings once stood lets existing home owners make even more money by selling than they'd make by continuing to restrict supply. While it's sad if that's the only path to success, we'll have to take small successes where we can find them.
I'd also rethink these questions under the assumption that incomes rise over time as the dollar reduces in purchasing power. The original premise was that due to inflation the cost you paid for a home would reduce your economic burden for housing. The slow and steady rise of inflation along with income would guarantee your loan to income ratio would improve.
The last few years have distorted this promise and I think some people have taken a more extreme view of the time window in the name of increased short-term profits.
All said the price you pay today being less of a burden over time was never meant to be a short-term profit motive in the discussion of homes as a economic safe haven.
>The problem is: why would you build more housing as prices fall?
So human beings with thoughts and feelings can live indoors. It's not hard.
Supply increases until the market reaches saturation. The question is why build more housing if the current supply is sufficient?
Saturation == until it's not longer a comparatively strong use of capital, not "until a significant portion of people are comfortably housed."
Why let private developers build at all? The market provides perverse incentive to not house everyone.
To create artificial scarcity on a free market, it should be either a direct monopoly, or a giant cartel that includes every single developer and has mechanisms of punishing the outliers.
How so?
Because central planners do not have the information processing feedback loops necessary to distribute all of the complex network of component commodities.
Truly there is some scarcity of resources in any given place that takes energy to extract, transform, and transport to the desired location.
Because everything cannot be everywhere, there will be unmet needs in a society.
The "free" market economy allows for a natural price discovery of everything which is more likely to not have shortages or overages in any given spot.
Granted this is pure basic economics. It does not imply when for a toy example, there are 10 people thirsty and a baby and there is a scarcity of milk, 1 cup, the milk should go to the highest bidder. obviously it should go to the baby.
Same thing with housing. There is a scarcity of all of the components that go into housing and administering the amenities that houses need in a city. Central planners do not have a good track record but with careful tracking and modulating feedback loops we might be able to meet more people's needs that an otherwise regulatory captured monopoly of vertically integrated home builders so that everyone has a better chance at a home.
But again not everyone can live everywhere logistically so how do you fairly distribute it? Obviously hunger gaming it in a cut throat capitalist world isn't working out too well but we do have the largest number of people ever on the planet so its a pretty decent system so far
That sounds like they could use some deregulation to keep margins healthy.
Construction costs don't scale linearly with rent prices, it's a different market altogether that depends on regulation/worker supply/material costs/equipment/etc.
As long as construction costs remain below the value of the units all-in, there's profit motive for developers to build.
> As long as construction costs remain below the value of the units all-in, there's profit motive for developers to build.
Not true
Real estate development is extremely capital intensive and therefore it's a question of all-in cost of capital compared to other investment opportunities.
The opportunity cost has already factored that in. Unless you think cost calculations are arbitrarily forgetting to include certain costs for no reason?
Well for sure in the actual financial models yes, but it's demonstrably true that most HN commenters here do not know this is how to think about the question of returns.
And FWIW "opportunity cost" doesn't really show up as "a cost" in the traditional sense.
> And FWIW "opportunity cost" doesn't really show up as "a cost" in the traditional sense.
I cannot think of any forward-looking situation where opportunity cost doesn't show up. What case are you thinking of? The discussion, of course, is about a forward-looking situation.
In hindsight often one becomes more interested in seeing if the opportunity cost was paid. A common way to calculate that is to forget about cost and only look at expenses. More specifically, income minus expenses. The result of that calculation gives the opportunity realized. This may be what you are thinking of, but the opportunity cost is still there, it's just that the way of looking at it has changed.
To house people. Shelter is a basic need.
lower prices != unprofitable, it might, it may also mean lower, similar, higher margins / ROI
Huh? In Silicon Valley the objection is usually: even if we build more housing, prices won't fall.
So which way is it now?
I don't know what those people say, why are you asking me?
[dead]
That gets automatically decided by the market. That's the beauty of markets. They automatically solve the local knowledge problem. It takes a government to create a lack of housing.
[dead]
This comment is phrased as if the article is confirming these points when it either doesn't mention them or even directly refutes them. First there is no mention of either crime or rent control in the article. But more importantly, it states that "A key piece of Austin’s strategy has been to encourage the construction of affordable housing." So why are you concluding that affordable housing isn't needed?
The comment is phrased in the greater context of the public discussion about housing, in general. Not the specific information of the article.
You know, like how a discussion about war might reference the various recent wars that everyone knows about; it's not limited to just the content of the article.
But it didn't reference anything, it stated political opinions like they were confirmed facts, provided zero evidence to support those assertions, and completely ignored the ways in which the article provides counterevidence.
They aren't saying affordable housing isn't needed. Just that the method for making housing affordable shouldn't be trying to make the current housing supply cheaper.
And from this is where you get "rent-control is a terrible idea". Essentially: trying to artificially drive down housing prices in any way is generally inadvisable if you can just build more housing.
Sure that's technically an opinion, but it's one based in facts, and it certainly doesn't have "zero evidence".
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-does-economic-eviden...
That's a pretty generous interpretation that requires you to believe rent control and building housing are diametrically opposed to each other.
rent control dramatically decreases the incentives to build and in many cases makes it impossible (read uneconomic) to do so
Blanket statements like this is the point of many of the above replies, it’s not a true statement with evidence. All rent control does not reduce the number of rentals, “more restrictive rent control”[1] [2] does. These nuances are important in the conversation.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105113772...
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4904928
Affordable housing is the only type of housing that will ever be built. Builders aren't so stupid as to build products that their customers can't buy. Government intervention is not needed.
Just up the street from me, a local builder is trying a tactic I have not seen before (in our area, at least). They are building out a new neighborhood, but it is quite diverse -- one end is dominated by duplexes in the 500K range and some smaller single family homes. The other end has larger, nicer homes priced at 2M or a little over. All in the span of a quarter mile or so.
They think it will work. I will be interested to see how it plays out.
I'm not sure if you're intentionally changing the definition of "affordable housing" in an attempt to make the desire for it seem silly or if you genuinely don't know how the term is typically used. But what you're describing is generally referred to as "market-rate housing" and not "affordable housing".
Affordable housing = housing that regular people can afford
The only silly thing here is that "low income housing" got rebranded as "affordable housing" and absolutely everything else got rebranded as "luxury homes" for political reasons.
"Market-rate housing" is even sillier given that it is literally the opposite of what "affordable housing" policies dictate
I'm not going to debate what the definitions should be, I'll just say I don't think it is productive to join an existing conversation using terms with different definitions than everyone else uses. Defining all housing as inherently "affordable" makes the term meaningless and even if you disagree with the motivations behind the desire for "affordable housing", at least the term has meaning in the way it's typically used.
You are quite literally debating what the definition should be, because this is _not_ the existing definition of affordable housing, it is legally what OP is saying. "Affordable housing" is just when the household spends <= 30% of gross income on housing related costs. This is the definition used by the HUD and the same definition applied in policymaking.
What >you< are referring to and what it is conflated with by progressive policymakers is "low income housing" which imposes an AMI based restriction on the resident's income. This in turn means that 30% of their income is much lower and restricts the sticker price of the home.
In recent years, most 'affordable housing' policy has been advanced by progressives, who use that term for marketing purposes, whereas the actual policy primarily relates to 'low income housing' or even 'very low income housing.' This does not mean 'affordable housing' = 'low income housing', it just means the term 'affordable housing' is used in the title and the actual measures advanced are related to AMI and 'low income housing.'
Those definitions aren't in conflict. The "progressive" definition is just the applied version of the "HUD" definition scaled to local income levels.
There is no "progressive" definition, income level is not at all part of the definition. Per the universal legal definition of 'affordable housing,' if a home costs $1B but is occupied by Elon Musk, it would still be affordable because it is less than 30% of his gross income.
When you are dealing with income levels it is universally called 'low income housing,' and the HUD definition is already scaled to local income levels, the 'A' in AMI stands for 'Area.'
You are conflating marketing ('we need more affordable housing!') with policy ('low income housing')
> There is no "progressive" definition
You seemed to disagree with that in your prior post, but I’m glad we can now agree that there is no point debating this then.
It's amazing how much of leftist discourse is just them pretending not to understand things, thus making discourse impossible
It is productive to decline to use propaganda terms. If, every time someone says they support affirmative action they are asked if they support having higher standards for Asian applicants to medical school than for white applicants that’s good because forcing people to defend their support of racist policies reduces support for them. By the same token pointing out that affordable housing doesn’t mean housing people can afford, it means politician allocated housing paid for by the general taxpayer, reduces support. Reducing support for bad things is good.
Its also helpful to know that there is a specific (US) program called "affordable housing" that subsidizes rents for low income people. The economic effect of that program is to increase rents (but not home prices). This especially hits the working poor who make just a bit too much to have subsidized rents.
This is not a program, it is a term used by the HUD and very explicitly does not relate to income levels. That is the point I keep making, when the modern (<5y) left keeps touting “affordable housing” they are misusing the term simply because they don’t want to say “low income housing” even though everybody acknowledges they are actually referring to “low income housing.”
It is very important to distinguish the two because “affordable housing” is a marketing term that could reasonably convince someone that the policy is meant to help 80% of people including themselves, when in actuality it is low income housing which is restricted to <20% of the area population and even fewer voters.
I like this reasoning. If there exists a person or organization that can afford to buy a thing then it is an affordable thing. Now this might sound like a tautology but that’s only because it is
And yet, gentrification.
God forbid bad parts of town ever get good.
That's not what gentrification is. Relevant to this article, I lived through the gentrification of large parts of Austin in the early 00s.
What happened was that good housing full of artists and musicians and other self-employed creatives began gentrifying, driving up property values, which drove up property taxes, which became unaffordable to the existing residents (who had owned their homes for a long time). Many (actually, most) of these artists had to sell and leave.
They often left for other cities. But hey at least the good houses everyone liked all got torn down to be replaced by McMansions for the influx of techbros.
Austin still has that slogan, "Keep Austin Weird." It failed. Austin isn't weird anymore. The University of Texas still is responsible for a lot of great stuff about Austin, but huge chunks of the city are just boring these days. There's certainly much less interesting culture happening. It's been airbnbified.
My interpretation of your comment:
The existing residents (artists) made money by selling their appreciated houses. Those who could afford to remain were now in areas with less crime and poverty.
The new residents spent a ton of money to live in a place they themselves culturally diminished.
We should re-evaluate the winners and losers here.
Let's talk about the East Side.
https://www.austinmonthly.com/in-photos-what-gentrification-...
I don't think many home owners got a price for their land that allowed them to buy a similar house elsewhere.
The world is far from an ideal model where what you get is what you deserve.
Note the history of the East Side power plant, which depressed property prices. Ditto, I-35 construction plans. The article says the plant will become a park now. After the new developers locked in purchases.
You see this business model everywhere. They buy up all the land around an industrial site, small airport, race track, pig farm that smells bad, etc, etc. Then they and their Karens lobby for rule changes that force that use out or make it non-competitive in the broader market. Then they develop the land.
Nothing will fix it until some case goes up to the supreme court and results in some sort of "they were there first the .gov can piss off" doctrine.
My heart breaks for those poor people whose houses became worth multiple times what they paid for them. A true tragedy. I would be devastated if my house became so valuable that the property taxes were more than I could afford.
Even if we don't enact Prop-13-like things to keep property taxes reasonable I'm sure we could get a compromise where your property tax remains stable as long as you deed the appreciation over baseline to the city/county.
Win/win, right?
> good housing full of artists and musicians and other self-employed creatives
It looks like - it might not be what you mean, but it looks like - you're saying 'good housing' is housing that has "artists and musicians and other self-employed creatives", as opposed to poor working people.
Many artists and self-employed creatives are themselves poor working people - making art is work (and so is marketing it to potential customers), and most artists are not lucky or successful enough to become wealthy doing it.
But yes, I think there is a sense in which people who are driven to create have some kind of ineffable, cultural capital that people without this drive do not have. So a neighborhood that is full of artists is more interesting, and therefore more valuable to spend time in, than one that isn't.
See the photo in the above East Side article. In the old neighborhood, people talked to the photographer because the front yards didn't have privacy fences.
[flagged]
Your comment violates site guidelines. "Assume good faith" https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
What did you hope to do by saying this?
What is a better faith interpretation of downplaying gentrification like this? Like what do we talk about when we talk about gentrification if not this? Gp is not even, like, denying the concept, and literally saying that it is good (in a sarcastic way).
It's not "better faith" to construct an entire alternative world for the user's comment to remove it from the actually existing implications of their point. I am not sure what that it is, but it certainly isn't a healthy exchange of ideas.
"I think we should burn down all the forests"; "Oh geeze that sounds like a terrible idea.."; "um it's actually pretty bad faith for you to assume they were talking about forests on Earth and not some bad evil forests that could hypothetically exist somewhere else..." taps the guidelines sign
I refuse the premise that "gentrification" is purely negative. There are benefits and downsides. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47434356
The downsides of not building new housing at all are even worse than "gentrification" and they fall even heavier on the poor. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47434470
I don't want to throw the dictionary at yeah but gentrification is the word we generally use to talk about a downside to maybe a more general effort in urban development. This is really really weird hill to die on.. Just pick another word, I don't think you'd lose the nuance you are trying to inject here. As it stands its just needlessly provocative, a Twitter-hot-take vibe that is generally frowned upon around here.
Also (imo) don't link to yourself like this! Especially when its to just another short comment in the same thread! Why do that??
> don't link to yourself like this... Why do that??
I've been told off (by dang, no less) before for copy-pasting comments. There's no winning it seems.
There’s nothing good faith to be interpreted from a pithy comment that denies real suffering experienced by real people. If OP wanted to be interpreted in good faith they should’ve written more substance to their comment.
Can you guess what the #1 source of wealth increase in the AA community has been over the last 20 years? That's right, grandma's house...guess where she lived.
This is a huge important part - if gentrification of an AA community occurs in an area where the homes are owned by the residents, it's a great wealth-growing event; generational even.
If the gentrification of an AA community occurs where the residents rent then they capture none of it and are forced out.
Let's assume communities are rated on a scale of 1 to 10. A "gentrified community" goes from being a 3 to being an 8. Renters are forced to move because they can't afford 8/10-rated-community rents, while existing owners profit handsomely. On this we all agree.
Where do the new residents of this now-8/10 community come from? Probably a place that was less than 8/10 - maybe it was 7. So now there's less demand for all the 7s and their rents decrease, allowing residents living in 6s to move there. And so on.
Assuming housing construction in the region has kept up with the population, even the renters who were forced out of the previously 3/10 community will likely find new housing in a 4/10 neighborhood at the same price. Their relationships from the old place were probably disrupted by the move (bad) but they also got better housing for the same money (good).
The key in this is housing construction must be allowed to increase with population.
Exactly - when things are happening "naturally" for some value of "not artificially constrained" you find that people move over time and what were the luxury dwellings of 20/30/50 years ago are the new "starter homes" of today.
When supply is artificially constrained, the old homes get torn down and replaced with luxurious ones - without increasing dwelling spaces available.
Good for whom? If it's good for the residents, that's great. If it's bad for the residents, who get driven out, but good for some developers and outside rich people - that's what gentrification is.
Unless all of the housing is owned by non-residents prior to gentrification, some residents always benefit from their neighborhood going upscale. Either through increased home values, allowing them to sell and improve their lives. Or because it's now a more pleasant area to live in.
Even renters in gentrifying areas may profit if housing construction outpaces population growth. Yes, they may have to move, but also the places they move to on their current budget may be nicer - because the people who can afford better have moved too.
> increased home values, allowing them to sell and improve their lives
That also raises property taxes, making the neighborhood unaffordable and driving them out.
> it's now a more pleasant area to live in.
For new wealthy residents. People who have spent lifetimes there don't want everything to change and have their communities destroyed.
> Yes, they may have to move, but also the places they move to on their current budget may be nicer - because the people who can afford better have moved too.
These are theoretical and very general averages. The actual individuals often do not benefit. Being forced to move is not a mere inconvenience to your theory.
The alternative: new housing doesn't get built. Existing housing - including the "bad" neighborhood that isn't redeveloped for fear of "gentrification" - gets bid up to the moon. People who can't afford rent end up moving anyway and commuting from very far away, if they're lucky. Or they end up on the streets, if they aren't so lucky.
That isn't theoretical. I just described the SF Bay Area.
When people in NYC are driven out of their neighborhoods because of gentrification, they generally move down south. There isn’t some magical part of town that they can afford with their “current budget”
> There isn’t some magical part of town that they can afford with their “current budget”
Literally impossible unless:
1. People are living in multiple houses
2. New construction hasn't kept up with population growth
We're commenting on an article that says the exact same thing.
> Literally impossible
Economic theory says some things are theoretically impossible, no literally, but economic theory wouldn't say that here:
The local housing market is much more complex than supply and demand, with larger economic factors (e.g., interest rates), very imperfect information (affecting everyone from buyers, to sellers, real estate agents, lenders, etc.), coordination by landlords (e.g., RealPage), non-economic factors such as prejudice (or just a co-op board!), government actions, larger trends, temporary inefficiencies, etc.
Economic theory is useful, but it does not predict or circumscribe the immediate reality of individuals. Life is much more complicated than that.
We're seeing in TFA that this economic theory worked on Austin rents.
First, I didn't say there is no supply effect; I said it's far from impossible for the effect to make a difference.
Second, many factors are involved in a complex market; you and I don't know how much effect the supply had in this case. That you are interested in that input isn't evidence of its effect.
In this case affordable housing nets out as a way to overcome policy barriers to market rate housing. So it actually makes the market freer.
Many other implementations of affordable housing further raise the barrier and thus even if any is built it doesn’t help widespread housing affordability issues.
Rent control is just another flavor of housing affordability policy that often (always?) backfires.
Crime, social peace, and economic opportunity are very linked. A lot of house prices in urban areas are wildly distributed and often the increase cost is to buy distance and safety (often just a couple blocks) from high crime areas.
>In this case affordable housing nets out as a way to overcome policy barriers to market rate housing. So it actually makes the market freer.
>Many other implementations of affordable housing further raise the barrier and thus even if any is built it doesn’t help widespread housing affordability issues.
Can you be specific with what you mean here? Because this reads like a no true Scotsman argument that it doesn't count as "affordable housing" if it works. The article discusses the programs encouraging income-restricted units which seems like a classic affordable housing program. What specifically do you think is different in this case?
Affordable housing in a vacuum disincentivizes development and results in worse affordability.
Affordable housing used as an incentive or way to overcome other barriers to housing (density limits, height limits, zoning etc) that makes the market more “free” net is will produce more development.
You don’t need it for development but it can be used effectively depending on other policies. As with all things it depends on what policy makers are optimizing for. These are all tradeoffs. But affordable by itself all else equal limits developer upside and incentives less development meaning less supply and higher prices.
>Affordable housing used as an incentive or way to overcome other barriers to housing (density limits, height limits, zoning etc)
I'm not sure what type of affordable housing program doesn't meet this definition. They are almost always tied to incentives for developers, including sometimes in the form of a removal of other housing restrictions. Or are you specifically objecting to financial assistance on the renter/buyer side? Because I assumed the “it” in “it doesn’t need to be “affordable”” was referencing the new development.
See San Francisco. Also generally anywhere else where prices are rising and developers can’t develop and yet there are a lot of affordable housing policies. CA as a whole has mismanaged this so badly they have a net migration outflow.
Also removing other housing restrictions that ostensibly were put in there by constituents is a valid reason for constituents to oppose AH. They get called NIMBYs for this but if the local populace wanted more high density development then the density limits wouldnt be there to be excepted by AH
> if the local populace wanted more high density development then the density limits wouldnt be there to be excepted by AH
If people didn't want housing there, it wouldn't be built. If they didn't want the exemptions to be codified, then they wouldn't be.
The only way your statement makes sense is if you restrict "local" to a sufficiently small subset of the people (a town? A block? One single address?), but in that case, a greater number of people within a greater definition of "local" seem to disagree.
If the state gifts a locality power to impose zoning restrictions, then the state can usually alter (or withdraw) that gift when it stops being beneficial to the people of the state, even if a small subset of those people living in that one locality don't like it.
>Also generally anywhere else where prices are rising and developers can’t develop and yet there are a lot of affordable housing policies.
Like I said, the “it” in “it doesn’t need to be “affordable”” seemed like it was referencing the previous “Build more housing”, so situations in which nothing is built are different. If your original intent was that not all housing policy should be about affordable housing, then we agree. But I do think it's an important part of the solution.
Vienna built housing itself, with this housing it was possible to have cheap rents and keep rents from private investors down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_in_Vienna
Unless you want to build more sprawl-oriented social housing, you'd still need, in most American cities, to reform zoning codes and building codes (single stair and elevator reform) to get Vienna style social housing.
It's a "yes, and" problem though, mostly. Let the market build what it can, and if you want to pursue social housing, do that too - just don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good and delay the reforms while you try and put together all the social housing pieces.
No, you need a government agency which will build social housing.
Not once has the private sector ever been "encouraged" to build social housing with deregulation. The only reason it keeps getting touted as The Solution in the media is because deregulation would boost their profits.
The bottleneck is land, anyway. If you dont tax that enough or take it with eminent domain then you'll end up like San Francisco with absurdly low density housing and criminally high rents.
The problem in San Francisco is NIMBYism, where supposed 'socialists' try and stop purely below market rate housing because it's the wrong shape or size or something.
Of course. they have enormous mortgages and anything which drags down the absurd value of their home is an ominous threat.
Blaming "fake socialists" or "nimbyism" doesnt change the fact that they are entirely rational actors in an economic system that is rigged to make the wealthy wealthier (e.g. with prop 13).
In fact, it's a clever rhetorical device to conceal the root cause and displace criticism towards the main culprits and, well, you fell for it.
NIMBYs exist throughout the US, even in states without Prop 13 or similar things.
Some of them are even renters.
No one is trying to conceal the problems with unfair tax systems - indeed, the people who spend time advocating for housing are probably your most likely allies in trying to fix it.
It’s worth noting that a major confounding factor is that, unlike most cities with a housing crisis, Vienna is well below its population peak and so does not need to build nearly as much housing
Technically yes, but lol no. Population is about the same as at its peak and density (person/m2) was about four times that of today. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlafg%C3%A4nger https://www.demokratiezentrum.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10...
During that peak Vienna’s housing situation was infamously bad though. You’d have single rooms shared by multiple families and beds being used by multiple people on a timetable.
We love solutions to housing that sound good but won’t work, like rent control and subsidizing demand. Building more is unpopular because it would actually work.
The same goes for homelessness. Feel good sound good solutions are popular. Housing the homeless is not.
BTW I have this weird crazy hypothesis that there might be a connection between homelessness and insufficient housing supply. Like, people not in a home, and not enough homes. I know it’s a stretch.
Sometimes I feel like there are other problems like this that we don’t really want to solve but want to pretend to solve.
Rent control is one of the best ideas, and it may be a civilizational, foundational idea.
Property ownership is at the very core of entrenched power, and the foundation of rent-seeking and wealth asymmetry.
If you look at even the Monarchs of long past - it wasn't their 'titles' that made them powerful - it was the economic rent that came along with the land ownership.
Even in more open market economies, property is still is basically long term economics lording over short term economics of wage earning workers.
Being able to kick someone out of their home almost arbitrary basically puts working class people at the 'total whims of the market' and it's one of the most disruptive concepts imaginable.
If we take the view that 'housing is about housing first - only about investment to the extent it does not disrupt housing' - then a different perspective takes shape.
Many Canadian provinces have 'basic rent controls' and it does not generally prevent new housing development.
If anything, providing 'housing stability' is probably the best way to create base prosperity, so those people can go out and spend on all the other things.
There might need to be some degree of leeway here and there for certain kinds of density challenges, but that can be had with rent control
There is almost unlimited land in North America to build on - if in one spot it's a bit difficult - build elsewhere.
If people want to have 'density' then incorporate an area and 'build density' in that area.
Also it does need to be 'affordable' but that can work with regulations.
Edit: our housing problems are about screwed up management, it's actually not even an ideological problem underneath. Like 'rent control' the way it is framed scares some people, but its literally province wide in Ontario, Quebec and it's a 'non issue' for new unit hinderance. Even the nimbyism stuff can be worked around: if people don't want high-rises next to them, it's their right, but there's a lot less opposition to 'mild density' especially if it fits in local cultural and aesthetic context. We can have our cake and it eat on housing. I think we invent ideological lenses because it's easier to frame 'narratives' than it is just weird policies, special circumstances, hiccups, different municipal things going on all at once.
It would be far more efficient to simply tax away all rent collected from land instead of grossly warping markets and creating terrible incentives for all involved.
The reason is that you can’t produce more land. Fixed supply will also warp economic markets and create terrible incentives (land speculation).
If you want the best solution, you implement a land value tax. If you want the 2nd best solution, tax property (Land + Building value). If you want the worst solution, implement rent control.
Rent control is not 'warping markets' - it's the notion that 'homes are markets' that is 'warped' - that's the basis of the problem.
The workaround is to build more dwellings, and rc generally is not an inhibitor there.
Funny enough 'wealth taxes' may actually be the worst of tax of all - aka a double negative - like a double negative.
What we want to do is make it so that 'rich people get rich' not from rent-seeking but from real value creation.
RC of course is inhibitor. It lowers value of the house, which lowers builder's profit, which lowers number of new investments.
Unless builders aren't building for profit.
Create an entity with a mandate to build and the funds to make it solvent. Basic and dignified shelter that enables all the other economic activity does not need to be a profit center.
This is possible but requires lots of money and oversight. I have never heard about scheme like that that replaced private investors. But as a way to offset some RC problems it could probably work.
A whisper on the wind, barely perceptible, it tickles your ear. "Singapore~ (also the UK before the Iron Lady messed things up)."
> Rent control is not 'warping markets' - it's the notion that 'homes are markets' that is 'warped' - that's the basis of the problem.
something can be essential + morally important + still governed by supply/demand constraints, this is such a silly statement to make. If there was no market, there would be no efficient allocation of resources. You need to make homes abundant to have the most economically (and thus, morally) efficient outcome.
> What we want to do is make it so that 'rich people get rich' not from rent-seeking but from real value creation.
Agreed! Tax the full rental value of land (rent seeking) and do not tax the value of the productive value creation that happens on it (building, capital, labor).
It's a bit disturbing and dystopian that one counldn't think of any other way to 'distribute things efficiently' than markets ... but worse, that even contemplating that there could be 'other ways' would be 'silly'.
This is the genteel version of "BUT THAT'S COMMUNIST!!" in response to any kind of policy that isn't rooted in a really narrow purview of markets.
Also - it's also a misrepresentation to consider that 'rent control' is somehow not quite a 'market based' solution, or, that considering 'homes' to be a civic function first, and economic issue second, somehow means they'd completely outside market functions.
"have the most economically (and thus, morally) efficient outcome." <- Adam Smith himself would completely disagree.
The argument I'm making here is directly against this warped sense of what value is.
Markets are just a system of rules that allocate only through the narrow purview of those rules.
We only get 'efficiency' as defined by those rules.
There are many examples, but at easy one, is that we grow our GDP substantially by getting older and sicker, and 'having more work to do' to take care of our system gone awry, or, that wars can be very profitable due to the armaments and subsequent reconstruction efforts.
Both of those by the are rooted in a similar notion - that we don't actually measure 'consumer surplus' - which is the value or 'profit' obtained by the individual, we only ever 'producer surplus'.
If we started to put 'consume surplus' as part of the GDP (impossible, because value is in the eye of the beholder, but maybe plausibly, it could be done) - then we'd see the 'consumer GDP' drop off a cliff as we got old and sick, so much that it would not make up for the increased consumer side GDP benefit of 'medical economy'.
That's just to start.
You could look at national security and justice, and how if we had to pay our soldiers for the risks they take - it would never work.
The more challenging one is to start recognizing the markets are mostly a function of power arbitrage, and not value creation.
We like to think that 'the man who builds his home, and does work for others, creates value, while the man who does nothing all day does not' - yes - that's the easiest way to see it, and it's not wrong. But most of the economy does not work that way, it works on power. Traditionally, it's rooted in real estate, now, it's also rooted in resource access and I would say finance. (And of course as always, political access and monopoly rights).
We should make 'housing' the primary focus, and use 'markets' as a 'tool' to enable social outcomes, not the other way around.
So the 'baseline things' - like basic housing, civil infrastructure, security, food security - those we have to have to be grounded in non-market terms using 'markets as tools' - and then the rest of everything, well, people can have fun, do as they please etc..
Critically - more people should to read Adam Smith, to see where he was coming from. The 'godfather' of economics was the first person to grasp it's limitations.
Oh boy, that's a lot of poetic waxing.
> It's a bit disturbing and dystopian that one counldn't think of any other way to 'distribute things efficiently' than markets ... but worse, that even contemplating that there could be 'other ways' would be 'silly'.
It's not disturbing, nor dystopian. And I didn't say there isn't any other way of distributing things efficiently, but there is no way of distributing _more_ efficiently.
Ultimately, you understand the beauty of markets, or you don't. Under the right conditions (fair markets, open information, competition, no monopoly), the invisible hand of the market distributes more efficiently and fairly than any individual or team ever could, without requiring the labor of an expert to be spent doing something that the invisible hand of the market could, leaving them to use their highly valuable skillset in some other way to actually benefit mankind.
My argument is specifically predicated on the fact that a housing market is well positioned to benefit, and doesn't because of poor policy decisions, like rent control, overly restrictive zoning, poorly designed tax schemes, etc. - which you assumed it isn't and then broadly and generally said I don't understand market limitations, agreed with me in a super roundabout way, and made sure to include some irrelevant nonsense about power arbitrage instead of value creation wrt housing. You lack focus and brevity. Truth comes from understanding things simply, not complicating the domain until you can apply any lens you want to view it in any way you choose.
Who builds them? Private party. What’s their incentive? Making money.
It's not the 'building' that's the problem - it never wars.
It's property ownership this is the core problem.
It's a zero sum game, of no value creation and mostly just economic rent extraction.
It's the 'property problem' not the 'thing on it'.
We have no problem getting people to 'make stuff and sell it'.
Property is not zero sum. You can build nicer things and improve land and me doing so doesn't hurt you.
Land IS zero sum. Land I own is land you do not own, and does not serve you, and I should not profit from the value of the LAND, only the value of the property I build / maintain / manage.
If homes can be bought and sold, then there is a market. Is your are taking about a society without money, that is a different discussion entirely.
Anyways, there are many studies showing that rent control is bad in the long term for housing affordability.
> it's the notion that 'homes are markets' that is 'warped'
A market in this case isn't a literal street market with vendors hawking their goods. The word "market" describes the relationship between people who have more than they need selling to people who need and would prefer to exchange their money (or vouchers etc.) to acquire it.
Housing can't not be a market anymore than food or labor could not be a market. It's like saying it's warped that water evaporates and becomes clouds and turns into precipitation. It's a word that describes one of the natural systems of how the world works.
Even in communist societies where the State owns all the land and all the housing and decides how to distribute it, you still have a State-owned-and-directed market between citizens who need housing and a State that has excess housing and provides it to citizens.
Almost nobody is using the word market as you are in your comment.
Rent control doesnt change the underlying fundamentals but it inhibits the ability of the ownership class from exploiting the working class based upon those fundamentals.
It will also provide immediate relief for struggling citizens, whereas a LVT or taxing property will take time to actually drive construction which will push down rents.
It's something local governments often have the authority to implement, unlike LVT.
A little mentioned fact: the highest rate of house building in new york (FAR FAR higher than today) coincided with by far the STRICTEST rent controls. Something to ponder next time somebody tells you that rent controls just stops homes from being built.
Rent control is the wrong solution to the right problem (ie affordable housing).
It creates all sorts of problems that wouldn't exist otherwise. For example, if you've been in a rent control house or apartment for 10+ years and are paying significantly less, what happens if you want to move? Or just need a bigger place? It's a huge impeediment to mobility and flexibility.
Also, you have an adversarial relationship with your landlord. They want you to leave so they can raise the rent. They'll skimp on maintenance, turn off the heat (even when it's illegal) and generally make your life miserable until you leave.
The solution to these problems is social housing, meaning the government becomes a significant supplier of affordable, quality housing. The very wealthy and the real estate industry don't want this however because it will decrease profits.
> Property ownership is at the very core of entrenched power,
In the literature, there is a distinction made between private property and personal property. I'm fine with people owning their own home if they want. That's personal property. Private property is when we allow people and corporations to hoard housing. I'm all for making it financiall punitive to own more than one house.
The problems that rent control creates are far smaller than the problems that exist without it.
To start - your 'very first example' is not even really 'a problem'.
'Without rent control' - you get kicked out of your abode every few years if your salary doesn't keep up with housing inflation. With rent control, you have the option of 'having a home; you decide when you want to leave (for the most part).
The answer to the 'second example', 'adversarial tenant/landlord' is that the theory doesn't line up with reality for the most part. Again - in most rent controlled areas this kind of stuff does not happen, especially if it's entrenched in the culture. It works well in a ton of housing markets like Quebec, Germany.
The primary concern about rent control limiting expansion ... just does not exist. It doesn't really impede new builds.
> 'adversarial tenant/landlord' is that the theory doesn't line up with reality
So disconnected from reality that it beggars belief.
Anytime you put two or more adult people into a relationship together and at least one person feels like they do not have the option to leave if things get bad (e.g. landlord feels like the tenant is wrecking the property but has no right to evict, tenant feels like landlord is not taking care of maintenance but feels pressured to stay due to artificially low rent), the result is toxic suffering.
Why is right to evict tied to rent control? Seems irrelevant
"Pressure to stay" can certainly be alleviated, rent control all properties. Half measures do not necessarily solve half the problem.
Rent control is literally the removal of the right to evict a tenant who refuses the otherwise-uncontrolled rent increase you request. The inability to evict them for refusing the rent increase is what de-facto keeps the rent from increasing beyond its controlled limit.
Oh, I get that, but what's stopping the landlord from evicting someone who damages their property? Or if the landlord no longer wants to rent and wants to live in it themselves?
> To start - your 'very first example' is not even really 'a problem'.
Yes, it is. Anywhere with significant and strong rent control results in a large number of people who simply cannot move. Look, rent control is better than no rent control but it address the symptom not the problem. The real problem is that rents shouldn't significantly outpace inflation. In a better world, you should be able to easily move because you're not locked in to a below-market rent that you don't want to lose. And rents get more expensive because a whole bunch of people make sure that housing is an appreciating asset. It should be a depreciating asset.
> The answer to the 'second example', 'adversarial tenant/landlord' is that the theory doesn't line up with reality for the most part. Again - in most rent controlled areas this kind of stuff does not happen
You will not find in any American city, especially one with rent control, where tenants do not absolutely hate their landlords as the general rule. What are you smoking?
"Anywhere with significant and strong rent control results in a large number of people who simply cannot move."
Having the choice when to move if the far, far more ideal scenario - there is not even a discussion.
This is not Apples to Oranges, it's Apple to Bag of Apples.
Rent Control gives people the option to stay, yes, with the realization that it may be more costly to move later.
So 'no rent control' is a horrible situation, with rent control it's a workable situation.
"l not find in any American city, especially one with rent control, where tenants do not absolutely hate their landlords as the general rule. What are you smoking?"
That is a function of garbage culture and total social break down - not rent control.
I live in an area where everything is rent controlled in entire region - and we dont have that.
This is tantamount to the "We need guns everywhere to stay safe!" argument so many people make because they can't wrap their heads around a community of people that just don't act crazy and violent.
>'Without rent control' - you get kicked out of your abode every few years if your salary doesn't keep up with housing inflation. With rent control, you have the option of 'having a home; you decide when you want to leave (for the most part).
But your renting, you don't own your home, why are you entitled to live there forever paying a below market rate? Maintenance has costs too, eventually if you live there long enough the property owner can even be losing money on your share of the building upkeep (paid by other people's higher rents). And yes the government _should_ let you increase rent in that instance, but then you're relying on your local government, which can dramatically change decade to decade as the political landscape changes.
The quickest Google revealed rents have gone up 71% since 2019 in Quebec [1], so I'm not sure if it's the poster child for rent control. I will say that at least makes them seam reasonable to accepting increases.
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-rent-registry...
> 'Without rent control' - you get kicked out of your abode every few years if your salary doesn't keep up with housing inflation.
Nope, you don't. You just do your best to foresee that outcome in advance before renting and pick a house you can afford. And if rents start to move against you, you plan to move out well in advance of getting "kicked out" by unaffordable prices. But that's actually easier than the status quo since no rent control means (1) lower rents overall for the same quality housing! and (2) everyone gets a home for the right price, there is no hidden privilege or lottery aspect to it. Of course it should be paired with higher property taxes or LVT so the rent itself isn't just value-capture by landlords, but that's politically doable. Just a matter of not picking the wrong political fight.
> Rent control is one of the best ideas
It's funny how this question might have the greatest divergence in answer distribution between people who do and don't know what they're talking about
Other candidates are "is debt good" and "is property tax better or worse than income tax"
I think it's a matter of perspective maybe more than 'knowing what they are talking about'.
Like - seeing property as 'investment and ownership' vs 'places where people live' is sometimes pretty big gap. Especially when we've been grounded in 'mortgages and wealth creation' for regular middle class people.
Rent control and the underlying civilization power dynamics are kind of a subtle thing, I think most folks are going to just answer in terms of 'what is good for them'.
Rent control drives up rents, not down. Since rent control was enacted in SF, rents have increased by 15x in 45 years. That's 24% a year annualized over 45 years. Its similar for other places that enacted it.
Rarely in human history has a specific policy failed more spectacularly. Yet you still hear supposedly educated people advocate for it every year.
> Rent control drives up rents, not down. Since rent control was enacted in SF, rents have increased by 15x in 45 years.
A couple of things:
You're aware of the Californian property tax control? If you aren't, go read up on the 197X Proposition 13, as well as the ways even vaguely-savvy landowners can get around the "tax is reassessed when the property changes hands" rule. IMO, it's only fair that tenants get the same sort of price-increase-protection that landlords get. If the landlords get rid of Prop 13 and anything even remotely like it for the next fifty years, I'll be first in line to clamor for the removal of what passes for rent control in the few cities that have it.
Unless you -as a developer- especially request otherwise, SF's rent control only applies to buildings that were in existence back in 197X, when the ordinance was enacted. New units are not covered by rent control. It does not apply to any commercial buildings... just residential rentals. It also only controls the rate of rent increase until the unit is vacated. Once it's vacated, the landlord is free to charge whatever rent they wish.
Your story gets confounded by the fact that -for a variety of reasons- it's nearly impossible to build any new residential buildings in SF. When demand is met with a nearly zero increase in the supply, the cost of the thing being demanded tends to go up.
Rents are generally quite high in California, not just in SF. From [0]
Only a few cities in California have rent control [1], so that doesn't explain the fact that rents are high state-wide.Though, it is more interesting to look at the numbers when adjusted to 2000's dollar. [2] I wonder if your "15x" figure is inflation-adjusted...
[0] <https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/tables/ti...>[1] Costa-Hawkings prevents cities from even considering the adoption of the policy to level the playing field with Prop 13-subsidized landlords.
[2] <https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/tables/ti...>
> our housing problems are about screwed up management, it's actually not even an ideological problem underneath
Broadly, our housing problems are bureaucratic in origin and I think bureaucracy is indeed an ideology.
I don't know how much I buy this. Washington, DC added about 60,000 units between 2015 and now, so a little less proportionally to Austin (with 1 million residents vs 650k). Metro area, 160k more in DC, with a population of 3 million (vs 2.5 million in Austin). Even if DC's unit add is slower than Austin's, you'd expect median rent changes to be within the ballpark, right? Maybe only a slight increase instead of the small decrease Austin saw?
No. Rent doubled.
I don't know if Austin or DC is an outlier, but considering how many states sued property managers and their rental management software providers over price-fixing, I'm leaning toward Austin. In the rest of the country, building more doesn't lower rents. Lowering rents lowers rents. And you have to force landlords to do so.
Accounting for inflation, rents barely moved from 2022-2024 in D.C.: https://ipropertymanagement.com/research/average-rent-by-yea...
I suspect most of the rent increase is due to inflation (sticker price). Nonetheless rents are still rising, which means 60k units were not enough to outweigh demand.
I'm sure 3 years noted for their high inflation rates are indicative of the preceding 7 years which were not. /s
either way, it's clear they didn't build enough
It's not, because it's not clear that building actually lowers prices.
> Yes rent control is a terrible idea.
When you aren't building more housing, for whatever reason, rent control is the only thing that prevents domestic 'immigrants' into your city from making all the residents homeless.
Since cities can't stop migration into them, it's the only tool they have to protect their existing residents.
---
PS. If you believe in trial-by-combat for housing, why not a similar approach to border control? It's the same concept, open it all up and let the market decide whether your existence is worth it.
There are billions of honest, hard-working, capable people who will happily pay more than you for where you live, do your work for less pay than you're willing to accept, and would love to live... Wherever you currently feel entitled to live.
What gives you any right to deny the market from improving the welfare of your landlord and employer?
The problem is, rent control scares away developers and traps tenants in apartments that they've grown out of.
Also why should cities prioritize protecting residents based on how long they've lived there? Everyone counts the same.
> Also why should cities prioritize protecting residents based on how long they've lived there? Everyone counts the same.
That's a great question. Why do countries prioritize existing citizens over all people who want to move into them? We are, after all, all the same. Two legs, two arms, just under a dozen fingers, most of us aren't destructive shitheads.
If we just let in anyone who wants to emigrate, you wouldn't be trapped in an apartment, or home, or city or life you were born into. You would always have the chance to 'upgrade' to one that's worse!
You're not emigrating anywhere, lol. Should I be treated like trash when I move from Bronx to Queens? How about SoHo to Tribeca? All US citizens have the same rights and every vote counts the same as every other vote.
Should Juan be treated like trash if he wants to move from Mexico City or Honduras to Queens?
Why should you deny him that mobility? Is he any worse a person than you are? Why does he have to jump through hoops and quotas and queues and all sorts of degrading, dehumanizing bullshit before he can do so?
Why?
---
If your answer is 'because that's the law and because we can make him jump through all those hoops', that's the answer to why cities choose to protect people who are existing residents at the expense of people who aren't. Because it's the law and because they can, if you don't like it, tough, you are free to go somewhere else.
I guess I need to hear more about your seniority rules. If I leave in a city all my life and leave for a month, do I have to start over when I move back?
Not sure what your point is. My point is that the rules around rent exist to protect current residents of a city. Just like rules about immigration exist to protect current residents of a country.
If you think one of them is immoral and unfair, but the other isn't, you're the one who needs to square that cognitive dissonance - not me.
It sounds like you generally think economics should trump the welfare of existing residents. That's certainly a view, but a logical consequence of it is wide-open borders.
> you're the one who needs to square that cognitive dissonance - not me.
No, you are. You have imaginary rules about who should be protected in a city (based on seniority??) that nobody else is aware of and are certainly not following. It goes by things like age and net worth, and basically nobody gives a shit how long you've lived somewhere.
> You have imaginary rules about who should be protected in a city (based on seniority??)
Rent control is not imaginary (Any more than any other rules are), and yes, that is exactly how it functions, for the purpose that I have described.
It advantages senior occupants (Who are grandfathered into controlled rates), at the expense of junior ones, or ones who don't live there yet (Who are presented with inflated rates, for obvious economic reasons).
There is no duty of cities to protect residents from "domestic migration". This exists entirely in your head.
There's no duty of cities to do anything, yet they choose to do quite a bit. Some of them choose to have rent control.
There's no "No" for you. You might be right and vkou's rent control is a bad solution, but he is certainly right and the laws as is are hypocritical.
There is a massive difference between rental prices and home ownership. There is a further difference apartment rentals and single family rentals.
Rented apartments are a commodity with features. Owned houses are fixed assets with different economic rules.
Yet Austin didn't just "build more housing" in a vacuum, they also changed how and where you can build
Well, build more housing and ensure the more housing is being bought by people who live in it or (if you don't find enough of those) by people who will rent it to them. Many problems occur when capital buys living space as an investment that needs to go up in value, since now there is an incentive to keep some scarcity.
Build more housing and scale schools, police, and fire linearly per unit.
truly incredible, instead of subsidizing demand you build more houses and just like that they're more affordable, somebody should write some economic theories on this.
So pretty much everything you've said here is wrong.
Build more housing? In a place like Austin, you can just keep building out, basically. To a point. Eventually cities doing this reach a limit. Houston and Atlanta are pretty much at or beyond that limit.
And it's not that building low-density SFH housing is the most economic. It's simply the most subsidized. Every road, every parking space, every sewer pipe, every water pipe, every utility pole, every school, every hospital, every police station, every fire station... they all add factor in to the true cost of housing and the more spread out things are, the more expensive those things become. Taken to extremes, look at the billions Houston spends now to add just one more lane (because this one will totally solve traffic) on, say, the Katy Freeway or the ring roads.
Yes it does need to be affordable. NYC is the posterchild for this. Nothing that's getting built on billionaire's row will ever trickle down to being affordable housing. They build ultra-luxury housing because it's the most profitable and it does absolutely nothing for anyone else because these units are just ways for non-residents (mostly) to park wealth and not pay their fair share of taxes.
Rent control is the wrong solution for the right problem and it's typically American. By that I mean it forces the solution onto private landlords who are going to do everything possible to get out of those obligations and deliver subpar but compliant housing. And they'll demand tax breaks for it. When in fact the solution is for the government to supply a large chunk of the housing market ie social housing. But there's a pervasive and wrong idea that we can only solve problems in the private sector and that's nothing more than a wealth transfer from the government to the already-wealthy.
"Just build more housing". Yeah, and then you get Houston. Cities need to be planned. Cities require infrastructure. And one of the most important thing cities need is public transit infrastructure, something sadly lacking in virtually every American city.
The core to so many of these problems is that we need to stop treating housing as a speculative asset. Owning two or more houses should be incredibly difficult and expensive and should be taxed punitively. By this I mean the capital gains on non-primary residences should be 80% and property taxes should be significantly higher.
I dont understand your solution, houses are expensive because there are too few of them in desirable places (otherwise we have plenty). The govt becoming a command economy wrt to housing does not fix the supply. If the govt is just supposed to handle all the supply and demand aspects of housing well I have good news, there is a lot of very cheap housing in former Soviet Republics just not desirable housing.
Also taxing homeowners harder doesnt really solve the problem. CA has insane taxes, SF especially has a giant budget. They just waste it. I dont believe that once the govt raises taxes they will suddenly become efficient and competent.
The idea that the more spread things out the more expensive they are is sound theory. However in practice, per capita taxes in a city are often higher than the rural or suburban regions. One water main should serve more people in a city and its cost amortized across the population should be cheaper.
In practice, cities tend to have tons of programs that drive taxes up. They are free to do that, not necessarily bad, but also not efficient from a tax payer perspective.
There's no reason for houses to be as expensive as they are. They are expensive because we've created incentives to make them more expensive. This is because we treat houses as investments, allow people to hoard housing, build the wrong tyhpe of housing (because it's more profitable), allow non-residents to use housing to park wealth, etc. So voters vote in politicians who put up barriers to build more housing and to defeat any kind of public transit infrastructure even though it would absolutely benefit people who still want to drive (by removing people from the roads who don't). Why? Because taxes.
Housing should be for residents of that city to provide a utility: shelter. Not as an investment vehicle.
It simply doesn't have to be this way. The poster child for this is Vienna [1][2].
Increasing house prices are an illusion of wealth creation. Let's say you buy a house for $200k but over the years it goes up to $800k. But every house costs $800k so you still have only 1 housing unit's worth of wealth. You've simply increased the barrier for younger people to buy houses.
Put another way: increasing house prices are simply stealing from the next generation and that money is really going to the already-wealthy and, to a lesser extent, the old. Just look at the median age of homebuyers in the US, currently 59 [3].
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41VJudBdYXY
[2]: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/jan/10/the-soc...
[3]: https://www.apolloacademy.com/median-age-of-all-us-homebuyer...
You seem to know Houston; alas yes Austin was formerly surrounded by open spaces.
But let's not miss the point of the article. This is a right-ward shift of the supply curve. It means that the economics of building the next unit got cheaper. That's the point.
I've seen a lot of neighborhoods across the USA, and Austin making way for higher-density housing on urban corridors (Lamar) is like, duh, this is more live-able. There are new towers along rail and bus route, townhomes packed in, and behind the tree line it's now possible for some single-family lots to become duplexes or fourplexes. And rather than McMansion ugly, the new Austin residents are dressing those up to look pretty darn cool.
There is a lot more to be done to remove supply-side barriers in every city.
Houston has a very high density of delicious food. The traffic is horrible but if there was a big investment into public transit, I think it would be a very nice place to live.
- an austinite.
So build more dense housing. It's that easy. Neuter the NIMBYs. Let people build.
>If you build housing, but allow crime to rise
Building enough housing that rents go down is the same thing as lowering crime so not much of an issue there.
Multiple things can be done at once. The policies you laid out are not mutually exclusive, and have different utility for different communities. But yes, fundamentally more housing is needed for growing populations. Conversions and rezoning are also important parts of the urban equation to “build more housing”, not just exurban McMansion developments.
It's possible to build more housing and have rent control. Rent control is the only thing allowing working class families to live a dignified life in the USA's most desirable cities. Land value tax and social housing are simply not politically feasible – rent control is.
That is simply not true in any way. Have you ever lived somewhere with rent control? Working class families who have members working jobs in rent controlled areas commute in from often over an hour outside of the city. There are only 3 types of people who live in those cities: those in public housing, upper middle class and wealthy. Their plumbers live in Tracy.
You may be implying it but you also need to make sure this new housing goes into the long term rental market, instead of being secondary residences or airbnbs. I've seen it happen first hand in my home town. That may not be a problem for Austin though.
The Law of Supply & Demand. As immutable as F=ma.
Austin is not even that good at "keeping law and order" (marginally better than say SF). It's really just "build more housing".
And yet, if you dig through the various comments on HN over the years regarding SF housing costs the overwhelming conesus is more rent control. Sometimes, the most common sense solution turns out to be the correct one.
Hows that working for SF so far?
To be clear, I'm not advocating for rent control. :-)
You have to restrict investors buying up that newly built housing too.
Homes for people. Not investors.
No not really. You just have to restrict the same investor from buying all the housing in an area, and prevent investors from colluding on rents.
Investors add to demand for housing. This will help drive up prices. And no, builders will not necessarily increase supply if they can realise increased margin of profit due to increased demand. We see that with RAM manufacturers. RAM suppliers constrain supply to boost margins. Same with house builders. The difference is people can go without RAM but everyone needs a place to live.
> Investors add to demand for housing
And here I thought people who want to live in houses add to demand for housing.
Investors buy houses that people want to live in. If people don't want to live someplace, you won't see any investors there either.
1 house is built. Alice wants to own it to live in it. Bob wants to own it to rent it to Alice. 2 people want to own the house.
> 2 people want to own the house.
and so how do you decide who gets it?
1) morally. Alice deserves it because her intention is more pure.
2) financially. Bob gets it, because he can pay more for it than alice.
Which choice above you make as a policy direction is a reflection of your world view. I'm voting for 2), but i can understand the POV of 1), even tho i disagree with it.
You are entirely missing the point. The correct answer is to build 2 houses. The problem with these policies is that they artificially restrict demand. If they didn't do that, nobody would have a problem with them.
> The correct answer is to build 2 houses
the utopian answer is to build two houses. But we don't live in utopia.
The constraints faced today is real (paper or physical). You can't wish it away, and you can't say it's "easier" to just build two houses.
So build 2 houses.
> And here I thought people who want to live in houses add to demand for housing.
Desire is a necessary component in demand, but it also requires willingness at a given price point. If houses are selling for $1,000,000 and you only have $500,000 to spend, then no matter how much you dream every night about having a home, you are not a contributor to demand.
Counterpoint: houses sell for $1,000,000 because there are more people with $500,000 (and every other number less than $1,000,000) who want those houses than there are houses.
How is that a counterpoint? It says the same thing with different words.
You said the person with 500k is not contributing to demand, they said the person with 500k is contributing to demand.
Said comment doesn't mention demand. However, it is true that supply and demand normally find equilibrium, which is the concept the comment was trying to describe. Which is the same concept I described. In simple terms, if you have 10 houses for sale (supply), then in a normally functioning market there will only be 10 people with the desire and willingness to buy them (demand). Many more may have the desire to own a home, but factors like price see their willingness disappear.
There are two exceptions:
- Surplus: When the price is too high and is unable to fall. Where supply exceeds demand. This manifests as there being houses trying to be sold, but that nobody wants to buy.
- Shortage: When the price is too low and is unable to rise. Where demand exceeds supply. This manifests in non-price mechanisms taking over. You might, for example, see houses get sold via lottery as a potentially higher bidder is prevented (e.g. the government stepped in and started enforcing a price ceiling) from offering more.
There may be some argument that there is a housing surplus in some markets, where houses are for sale but never find a willing buyer. However, it seems most houses eventually sell. There is likely no argument for there being a housing shortage by the technical definition. If you have unlimited money, you can surely buy any house on the market.
There are always exceptions, but it is pretty safe to say that supply and demand are finding equilibrium in most housing markets.
Sounds easier to just outlaw investor from owning houses they don't live in themselves. Seems we can't really stop collusion, only real way to win there is to not make that possible in the first place.
Then everyone is forced to buy a house to live in, no matter what their situation or desires are.
Of course we can stop collusion. What are you even talking about?
> Then everyone is forced to buy a house to live in, no matter what their situation or desires are.
Great! Now we're talking real solutions that can actually help people :)
> Of course we can stop collusion. What are you even talking about?
Besides laws and regulation (which already exists and clearly isn't enough), what is your suggested solution for stopping collusion?
Price fixing is/was already illegal in the US (if I understand the Sherman Act correctly), yet the largest landlords in the US was found to engage in price-fixing and artificially raising rents. https://www.propublica.org/article/justice-department-sues-l...
That's not helpful at all. There are many, many situations where you don't want to own. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47434393 You're telling all these people "f** you"
I currently don't own, and I can't either, because I don't want to be stuck in one place for too long. If the prices where lower, where I could reliably buy, live for some years then sell again, without a huge amount of hassle, and not costing at least one million to buy some shitty apartment, then that'd be preferably.
And besides just having "real estate investors" slurping up all housing, people could own one house then rent out parts of it, or a collection of people could own their apartment building together, there are many other ways to make housing work that doesn't involve huge companies owning large parts of the market. A little bit of nuance goes a long way.
> people could own one house then rent out parts of it
It's already a thing, called house hacking. Tough luck if you're a couple that wants a complete unit instead of a room in someone else's house.
> a collection of people could own their apartment building together
That's called a co-op or a condo (the difference is a bit fuzzy to me). This still involves ownership and upkeep of an asset, which many people prefer not to do.
> huge companies owning large parts of the market
Make it publicly-owned, for all I care. Or let it be individual landlords. Or forbid a single company from owning more than 5% of the stock in a city. As long as it's market rate and abundant and competitive, it literally does not matter. More houses = cheaper housing.
> yet the largest landlords in the US was found to engage in price-fixing and artificially raising rents
Your own link shows that we know this happened because there was a Justice Department investigation about the practice. How can you say enforcement isn't happening.
It really doesn't matter as long as someone is living in it.
35% of Americans rent their homes. And they almost invariably rent from investors. Therefore if more than 35% of homes are owned by investors this drives down rent. If less than 35% are owned by investors rent goes up.
This logic assumes that 35% of Americans WANT to rent their home. Which seems odd to me, if only for financial reasons - why would you pay 1400$ for a 1 bedroom apartment when you could pay 700$ in a mortgage for that same apartment if you could have bought it?
> why would you pay 1400$ for a 1 bedroom apartment when you could pay 700$ in a mortgage for that same apartment if you could have bought it
Because the down payment you put into your purchased home could've been put into the stock market and grown faster than property values (this is historically true).
Because you don't want the headache of home maintenance.
Because in the 21st century, job stability doesn't exist so it's a big risk to buy a home fifteen minutes from your current job that might be an hour from your new job after you get fired so a CEO can get more golden parachutes.
Because you might have to change cities a year from now.
My wife and I rented for a long time because it was better than owning for us.
Agreed. It’s a classic fallacy to compare rent vs mortgage on a numbers to numbers basis. It’s classic example of not accounting for the total cost of ownership.
If you invent a scenario where the mortgage is half the rent then buying is a no-brainer. Does that reflect reality?
Maybe not half, but it’s pretty common around here (generic midwestern city) for renting to be more expensive than a comparable mortgage.
Many landlords seem to expect to pay their mortgage and property taxes and maintenance with the rental income, and still net a profit, if r/landlord is to be believed.
The profit is compensation for the risk. The mortgage and property taxes and maintenance are due no matter what - can't find a tenant, tenant doesn't pay, tenant flushes paper towels down the toilets every day etc etc.
If there was no profit there would be no landlords. Some might say that's great. But it would be a world with less flexibility, with fewer choices. Don't like your job and want to move? Split up with your partner and need someplace to live? Moved to a new city and don't know where you want to put down roots yet? At college for 4 years? Don't want to deal with house maintenance? "F** you, buy a house anyway". That's what we'd have if there was no rental housing.
Okay, so why were you asking if renting can be more expensive than buying? You seem to already know that it can be.
I said they were inventing fantasy scenarios.
The actual numbers might be more like rent $1400 vs mortgage $1000. After property taxes, insurance, and maintenance there might be $50 left. A handsome 3.5% profit, rising to maybe 6-7% if you include principal paydown. This is hardly a money-printing machine. It's a steady return for taking on some risk.
Ah, I see, you wanted to split hairs on the numbers. Fair enough.
It isn't splitting hairs. The numbers actually matter.
It’s at risk of becoming a fractal of splitting hairs. Substituting your numbers in for theirs doesn’t change much. It’s still more expensive to rent.
Kind of an unhelpful tangent to the discussion, really.
> Substituting your numbers in for theirs doesn’t change much
You can buy a boat for $10 or rent one for $9. Assuming you really want a boat, would you buy or rent? Do my numbers reflect reality? Do they have a bearing on the choice you make?
It changes a TON whether you pay 2x for renting or whether you pay 1.05x.
Renting has annoyances but it also has flexibility. A flat "more expensive" is staring at one tree and missing the whole forest of tradeoffs. Way more people would choose to spend $50/month for that flexibility versus $700/month.
?? How in the world is it splitting hairs to point out that those numbers don't make sense. It is directly relevant to the question of how many Americans want to rent. You don't need to be like this :(
> renting to be more expensive than a comparable mortgage.
that doesn't sound plausible. May be for a select few properties that are in some unique circumstance (e.g., the seller of the property would sell underpriced because they needed quick sale).
And often, in arguments like these, the rent is the rent, but the mortgage is purely the interest on the loan, and doesn't count the maintenance cost, and doesn't count the deposit required (which has a cost, ala the cost of capital). If you added up all these costs, it exceeds rent.
I fundamentally agree on statement that rents are more expensive than mortgages. As capital is involved and landlords want premium on capital.
Still, things can go either way. And well renting is lot more flexible and less risky. So there is really nothing wrong with that option existing. And many times it is the better pick of the two.
> And well renting is lot more flexible and less risky
Sure if you don't count the cost of risk for the tenant (of needing to move due to job loss, unexpected maintenance bills) then renting is more expensive.
You do know that the posters on r/landlord are often selling services to landlords and thus have a financial incentive to make being a landlord seem attractive. Its a pretty safe assumption that reality isn't that rosy.
The numbers you are using are not common at all.
> 35% of Americans rent their homes. And they almost invariably rent from investors. Therefore if more than 35% of homes are owned by investors this drives down rent. If less than 35% are owned by investors rent goes up.
This only holds until the percentage owned by the investors becomes a monopolistic chunk. At that point the investors would rather leave some apartments empty rather than see rents go down.
See: all the current RealPage lawsuits
> Build more housing. Keep law and order.
At least the latter has been equated with fascism in recent years. That's why it's become such a problem.
in america, more density and more people always means more crime
[dead]
Wow, that sounds racist /s
> Just build more housing.
Also "Wipe out a whole boatload of techbros who artificially inflate prices". Nobody is talking about that part of the equation.
Austin was one of the places a lot of tech folks flocked to when everybody was working online. RTO and layoffs have wiped a lot of them out. I'd estimate almost 1/3 of the tech folks that were floating around last year are now in other cities.
> No it doesn’t need to be “affordable”
The article directly contradicts you:
> "A key piece of Austin’s strategy has been to encourage the construction of affordable housing."
There is enough data now from around the world that shows that it is important what kind of new housing you build. Building all new luxury units does not lead to lower rents.
Another big factors for Austin is probably the significant decline in population growth in the past few years. But sure, keep spreading blanket statements and misinformation...
I know that there are many "free market" type of dudes on here, so keep the downvotes coming. But he truth is that an unregulated market in housing does not work. Even the "freedom" state Texas has understood this.
"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.
No 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.
You 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.
There is affordable housing all over America. Get it through your head. It’s about nearness to the economic singularity that costs so much not the housing itself.
There isn't affordable housing in areas of opportunity. You can easily find cheap housing if you don't care about proximity to jobs or to good school districts.
[flagged]
What do you mean by "economic singularity"? If your goal is being near economic opportunity then Austin has plenty.
It’s not NYC or SF, but this suggests that those would be more affordable if they just built more housing.
It is not affordable if it is located somewhere with no job.
Congrats, you just figured out the point of the statement
And most importantly - limit housing speculation e.g. don't allow private equity to buy those.
Housing should not be a speculative investment or a wealth growth vehicle.
Housing must be a commodity.
> Its wild how the solution to housing costs is really just:
> Build more housing. Keep law and order.
Safety (law and order) increases housing costs, as you say. It's desireable on its own, but it does not solve housing cost. NYC is very safe and very expensive. Crime is way down in most of the US, and housing costs are much higher.
NYC is fairly high density. Has stopped building massive new skyscrapers and has water on two sides. It is also a tier 1 global city culturally AND economically. Its not really reasonable to expect to be affordable.
It's been affordable for many generations, a destination for opportunity for the poorest people, including immigrants. It's only recently that things have become so absurd.
> water on two sides
Do you mean Manhattan, one of the five boroughs? It's an island.
> stopped building massive new skyscrapers
When? Why?
without rent control, what economic incentive do renters have to maintain law and order / invest in local community / be a good neighbor? any investment they make is captured by the landlord. in fact, they are incentivized to maintain their neighborhood in as much disrepair as they can stand, for fear of rent increases.
the little old lady living in a rent controlled apartment is a big part of why rents are high in that area: she was part of what made the community thrive. we would do well to compensate her for this.
And also expand the city line for what "Austin" is so you can include the cheaper, far from everything housing that you refuse to build.
Yes, it does need to be affordable, and a certain percentage of it needs to be non-market housing. Housing isn't an elastic commodity. Get real.
But where do you draw the limit on moving the line in?
Do I get to demand affordable housing overlooking Central Park in NYC? Beachside in Malibu?
If you want large incentive for development at scale you need to allow developers to make fat margins or else you wont get too many of them. Yes you can use affordable housing to do that. Eg: in the article they got higher density and exceptions (aka “fat stacks”) for building affordable housing units.
This is all policy tradeoffs at the end of the day. Eg: a tent is not “housing”, why? Because of reasonable policy. Same thing with housing codes etc. All directionally wise/good. But at the same time you can have bad affordable housing policy.
I do think housing is elastic and a cities policies around that elasticity determines if they will thrive or stagnate.
I think that building more housing helps, but a lack of supply is not the only cause of high housing prices. Wealth inequality is also a huge driver, possibly the primary driver. If wealth is allocated in a society in a sufficiently lopsided way, then a small number of people can buy up literally all the assets in the society. Regular people are bidding against a small cadre of ultra-wealthy people who can't possibly spend all their money on consuption, so they use it to buy assets like other people's homes. In the aggregate, increasing the housing supply won't bring down housing prices if wealth inequality is also growing above a certain rate.
This can also be fixed by increasing supply. People buy housing as an investment because they expect it to increase in value. The best way to counteract that is to build and continue building so that doesn't happen.
There's only so much land in the places where people want to live. You can't increase the housing supply enough to stop housing from being an asset in a society where wealth is sufficiently unequally distributed. By virtue of its unique scarcity, land (and therefore housing) will always be an asset, and in a society with increasing wealth inequality, the price of assets will always be going up.
No, it really is not that easy. Check out China, and read up on the Spanish housing crisis. "Just build more" works only sometimes, as demonstrated in those counter-examples. Housing is massive societal and sociological problem with no simple fix. Furthermore, in many circles, another proposal is to cut red tape. You know, housing in the US already is among the least affordable and lowest quality in the developed world. But some people really insist that going back to asbestos and lead pipes would make housing cheaper.
And don't get me wrong, asbestos and lead are wonderful construction materials. Cheap, durable, and high quality. It's just a shame it causes all sorts of health complications when we use them, right? I mean, it would definitely make housing cheaper, but also cause all kinds of health problems.
Your reply conflates “build more” with “build anything, anywhere, with no standards”, which is not what they wrote. China and Spain are not rebuttals to the basic supply point because both involved distorted credit, speculation, and overbuilding in the wrong places or segments, not healthy increases in broadly useful housing supply. The question is not whether supply is the only variable, but whether more homes, in places people actually want to live, puts downward pressure on prices and rents, and it does. That is just basic scarcity: when demand rises faster than housing stock, prices go up.
Keeping crime low matters too, because people pay a premium for safety, and high-crime areas often face weaker investment and worse long-term housing outcomes. And “cutting red tape” does not mean legalising asbestos or lead pipes, which is a straw man. It means reducing delays, exclusionary zoning, parking mandates, and other rules that limit safe housing production and raise costs for no good reason. Housing is absolutely a complex social problem, but complexity does not erase the role of supply. More safe housing plus safer neighbourhoods will not solve everything, but it is still one of the clearest ways to reduce pressure on rents and prices.
Meanwhile, California is also trying to build housing near transit, but Menlo Park wants to preserve the character of downtown by preserving dirty, cracked, flat, surface-level parking lots like it's 1950.
NIMBYism has never been about preserving neighborhood characteristic, or noise and traffic concerns. Menlo Park is not Big Sur. Sure, some concerns are reasonable and should be investigated, but most of the time they're bureaucratic distractions that's been weaponized by people who want to delay progress and protect their investment.
For most Americans, A house is their primary savings account, retirement plan, and probably where they keep majority of their wealth. We don't build new housing in old neighborhoods because it would de-value the investment of too many people. Until we can solve this problem (where people are incentivized to pull the ladder up behind them), we will always have housing shortages. It's just too profitable.
Anecdotally, what we found in Austin was a combination of two factors:
First, awareness of the futility and selfishness of "growth elsewhere" as a solution is much higher in younger people — and by younger, I mean currently under fifty. Generational turnover in Austin had been eating away at the NIMBY majority, and conversations about housing in Austin have long been polarized more by age than by left/right political sentiment. There's a caricature, with a strong vein of truth, of the old Austin leftist who has Mao's little red book on their shelves and thinks apartment buildings are an abomination, and Austinites of that generation are experiencing mortality. At the same time, younger people are adopting more and more urbanist mindsets compared to their parents.
However, I think a much much bigger factor was the influx of younger people, especially young people with experience of larger cities, diluting the votes of the older NIMBYs. Austin has been shaped by growth for half a century, but its "discovery" in the 2000s and very brief status as a darling of coastal hipsters (remember that term?) has had a lasting effect on Austin's popularity and its demographics. It's been twenty years since it was the "it" place for Brooklynites to visit, but in that twenty years, it's had a lot of exposure for young urban dwellers, and some of them discovered they liked it and moved here, bringing their comfort with dense living and their appreciation that growth can bring a lot of positives.
Personally, every homeowner I know in Austin has seen their houses depreciate significantly this decade, and I don't think it changed a single person's mind about Austin's housing policy. People who opposed the reforms are bitter about the outcome, and people who supported the reforms say it sucks for us personally, but it's what we set out to accomplish, and we're glad that it worked.
Texas' high property taxes play an important role. Owners are incentivized to permit new development to satisfy demand and keep their taxes low.
People see lower property taxes as a silver lining for short-term swings in the market, but I don't know anybody who thinks this is a short-term swing that they can ride out.
Nobody is happy about their property values going down long term. It exposes them to the risk of a big loss if they're forced to sell because of events in their life.
> Austinites of that generation are experiencing mortality.
This is such a funny and novel way of saying "old people in Austin are dying" I just had to point it out.
Also, I like the way this comment is written in general. Felt easy to read for its length, and most importantly the tone stayed fun and personal while still being informative and on topic.
> For most Americans, A house is their primary savings account, retirement plan, and probably where they keep majority of their wealth.
If you allow for increases in density, that house (actually the land beneath it, but still.) becomes more valuable as it's redeveloped. So that American homeowner does benefit, by unlocking the upside of "evil gentrification" (or actually, density increase).
That can only happen if the higher density coincides with equal economic growth in the neighborhood. Otherwise, the higher density could result in a negative home valuation trend.
Given the above uncertainty, and higher density could result in more traffic, noise, crime, nymbys are likely taking the correction position for wealth preservation and quality of life.
"Traffic" doesn't come from higher density, it comes from zoning bans on mixed-use neighborhoods which force people to drive everywhere. The "crime" argument is especially silly: why assume that higher density only ever attracts criminals? Usually, having more people around is a positive.
You can assume higher density has "more crime" because the increase in people means if you want to keep the same absolute rate of crimes (which is the only thing people ever notice--every violent or sexual crime will be repeated in the news), you have to correspondingly increase the efficiency of crime-fighting, and American police aren't up to the task, even if they were motivated to do so.
A paper came out about this recently: The City as an Anti- Growth Machine.
> Logan and Molotch's “urban growth machine” remains foundational in urban theory, describing how coalitions of landowners, developers, and politicians promote urban growth to raise land values. This paper argues that under financialized capitalism, the dynamics have inverted: asset appreciation now outweighs productive investment, and urban land is increasingly treated as a speculative asset.
https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.70145
I'm not sure why new housing devalues old housing. In my mind, higher density generally makes an area more desirable (e.g. because higher density enables more jobs, better infrastructure) and raises the value. Imagine as an extreme example and existing house in the middle of nowhere around which a metropolis is developed. Surely the value of the house, or at least the land it is built on, goes up, even though it loses its "cabin in the woods" appeal.
You think if there were modern highrises in Menlo Park a tiny 2BR shack next door would still sell for $2M? It’s a supply and demand issue, nothing more.
A tiny 2BDR shack next door that is worth $3M because of the 6000sqft lot it sits on _absolutely_ goes up in value when density increases.
It's not worth $3M because of the lot it sits on.
What is your mental model for this then? If the "2BR shack" can be built from scratch for 300k, and the value for the lot + shack is $3M, then the land value is $2.7M. Most expensive real estate is land value, not actual structure value.
I see what you're saying, my point is that the principle thing driving it's value isn't the land nor the shack, it's the regulatory framework of the area.
Yes, it would go way, way, way up because if there is a high rise next door someone wants to knock down the shack and put up another high rise, a commercial building, etc.
I've never seen the evidence where density increases drive down existing land/home values.
You need to separate land value and house value.
When regulations are reduced to allow more density, the value of the land goes up because its productivity increases. The land can do more now, e.g. hold 10 apartments vs 1 house. The same land generates more rent so developers are willing to pay more for that land.
Meanwhile, the value of housing units goes down due to increased competition among sellers/landlords.
Consider two zoning changes.
1) You are a homeowner and more units are allowed on your parcel, e.g. single-family -> duplex. That increases your land value.
2) You are a homeowner and there is more density around you, but not on your parcel, e.g. apartments are allowed nearby but not on your street. Your land value does not increase. Your home value decreases due to increased competition. (Of course, there may be long term effects like the increased density actually leading to economic windfalls in the area, increasing its desirability, and then increasing your home value.)
it's not that density per se drives down existing costs, but density almost always brings more housing stock to the market (unless they are simultanously tearing down housing elsewhere) and housing stock drives down the cost of housing, which is the point of the original article.
So if we take it as an assumption that density increases housing stock, there is lots of evidence that density drives down prices of existing land/home values.
It seems like it would drive down housing prices, but (given limited zoning) drive up land prices?
Yes, that's correct. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47437907
Density is not going to drive down cost for the same kind of housing. A SFH is not the same as a smaller home on a denser plot, much less an apartment block in a high rise. So the SFH owner who pursues increased density does indeed benefit.
Even from a quality of life perspective, imagine having an SFH in city center that is within walking distance to shops, job, activities etc.
Isn't the parent article basically evidence of this? Housing supply grew, and prices fell.
The article only talks about rent, not price of housing, which I think is an important data point.
Homeowners don't want housing prices to fall. Ever. They don't care about rent prices (at least, not directly). But renters care about both — obviously lower rent prices are good, but many want to be able to enter the housing market but it's prohibitively expensive.
Perhaps falling rent prices has a similar effect on home prices — the value of buying a home for the purposes of renting becomes less desirable due to lower rental revenue, so prices fall. Not sure, the macroeconomics of housing never made sense to me because it's never as simple as pure supply and demand.
As an example, my wife and I finally decided to buy a house in a fast-growing CA suburb (not in Bay Area). The house was constructed in 2021 and sold for $611k. Plenty of renovations have been done on the house, we'd estimate around $20k+ worth of renovations, and the neighborhood and surrounding area has only grown since then (more parks, housing, great schools, stores etc).
The house was listed for sale at $600k; even then we were able to underbid and get our offer accepted. Inspections turned out clean, just minor cosmetic issues.
I don't keep an eye on the rental market but we've lived at two different rental properties and both of those places went up in rent once each, so I can only assume that rent is going up everywhere in this area.
Point is, rent and real estate don't always go in lock step.
The house prices DID go down here in Austin.
Good to know. The article didn't mention that but it seems like glaring omission.
Austin literally had density increases and house prices are down. The original article is literally the example.
in fact, density increases the value, because the original plot can now be resold at a higher price for a hi-rise.
I think there are a big range of opinions people have. There are some hardcore housing resisters whose opinions get a lot of sway because of the way processes work (public consultations, activism, etc). Lots of people are a bit sceptical because of pretty legitimate reasons – noise, traffic, disruption, aesthetics.
I think there probably are balances where people could generally be happier with new construction and that opinion could be clear enough to overrule those who would never be happy with it. Things like:
- ways of having locals vote on new development with small enough constituencies that they can be paid off (ie some of the gains that would have gone to developers or other positive externalities can be captured by those who are more effected) with lower taxes or new roads or parks or whatever
- making residents vote instead of having consultations will lead to less bias in favour of the most obnoxious
- allowing apartment blocks to vote to accept offers of redevelopment (eg you get a newer apartment; more apartments are added to the block and sold to fund the redevelopment)
- having architectural standards that locals are happy with for new buildings
- allow streets to vote to upzone themselves (I don’t love this as it’s basically prisoners dilemma – if your street does it, land value increases and you gain; if every street does it land value only increases a bit but now you are upzoned)
I basically think that there are developments that can be broadly appealing and we are in a bad local minimum in lots of places of having bigger governments trying to push development on unwilling smaller governments/groups
Yet I'm not sure it comes from more localized decision-making. It might actually come from making the rules clearer and less discretionary
Fundamentally as a society we need to stop treating housing as an investment. It is and should be a utility.
Suring property prices is a relatively new phenomenon (as in, post-WW2). The true origins of NIMBYism, at least in the US, is (you guessed it) racism. Long before segregation ended, and long after, there was economic segregation. Redlining [1], HOAs [2], the post-WW2 GI Bill [3], where highways were built [4][5], etc.
In fact this is a good rule of thumb: if you're ever confused why something is the way it is in the US, your first guess should pretty much always be "because racism".
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining
[2]: https://www.furman.edu/fu/placing-furman/what-are-racially-r...
[3]: https://www.history.com/articles/gi-bill-black-wwii-veterans...
[4]: https://www.npr.org/2021/04/07/984784455/a-brief-history-of-...
[5]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-09/robert-mo...
https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/21/against-murderism/
Yes. A lot of people are happy when housing prices rise, because it benefits them. But higher housing prices are worse for us as a society.
Similarly, higher gas prices benefit the gas industry but we shouldn't let that dictate policy.
: unfortunately, we somewhat do.
It’s going to take a SCOTUS decision overturning Ambler vs Euclid in my opinion.
We certainly will not see zoning reform until the Boomers die.
Case in point: my parents. Built a house in 1988 and they still live there. Two people in 3500 square feet. Four bathrooms and five bedrooms. Meanwhile, you need a family income of 3x the median to rent a townhouse 1/3rd the size nearby.
This is beyond ridiculous and it’s totally unsustainable.
Hate to be the bearer of bad news here, but the boomers will never die. Gen X will become the new boomers, and then the millennials after them. Individual people die, but interests stay the same.
Yeah, but the inverted pyramid demographics can’t last forever.
There’s a lot of truth here, but two countervailing points: first younger generations own homes than Boomers at equivalent ages; second Boomers are particularly blind to the effects of zoning and strongly oppose development due to see firsthand the effects of 1950s urban redevelopment. They also love cars.
Us younger generations will have seen firsthand the negative effects of zoning, we do not possess a visceral opposition to development, and there is much greater appreciation of walkable neighborhoods.
-
> If NIMBYs were primary motivated by making money the prudent thing to do would be to support unrestricted zoning and then develop or sell the lot.
That is highly dependent on what exactly is being built next to your home. Sure, if it's more luxury housing then it'll probably drive the value of your home up. If it's low-income housing then it probably won't. And what we need is more of the latter rather than the former.
> you can take out loans against the value of the equity but this isn’t particularly common.
It's because it's an investment, you're going to get the return once you finally sell your home. Only in a pinch if someone needs a large amount of money to start a business or pay for an emergency will they mortgage their house.
> And what we need is more of the latter rather than the former.
You just need to wait. The luxury housing that gets built today becomes low-income housing as it ages. There's no short-circuiting that process the way the incentives are set up, but you can drive down prices across the board by building more, even more luxury housing.
> It's because it's an investment
The home you live in isn't an investment; it's a store of wealth.
Many lives were ruined by thinking your primary home is an investment.
[dead]
[dead]
>For most Americans, A house is their primary savings account
This is true for California, where people (foolishly) rely on their home value as their retirement plan, which further incentivizes NIMBYism.
But in places like Texas (and other areas with affordable housing), the house is just treated as something you pay off to have a low housing cost in retirement. And your investments are your retirement+savings account.
I'm not from Texas or California but it doesn't intuitively feel true to me that Texans are better at investing and saving for retirement.
According to the first relevant search result I can find https://www.cnbc.com/select/average-retirement-savings-by-st... the retirement savings per dollar of median annual income in California is $1.44 and in Texas is $1.17
Do you think that's wrong? Or do you think it's a misleading statistic and doesn't contradict your belief?
I wasn’t trying to say one was better or not, just different. Californians wrap up a large amount of their retirement savings in their houses though, so keeping those home prices high is important to them and that’s a reason for stalling development.
I think Californians do, a lot of time, retire with a higher net worth. But most of them do that because they’re more relatively house-poor during their lives - they take out larger mortgages, and save more into their net worth.
As opposed to Texans, who have higher disposable income since they have smaller house payments. It’s less incentive to save so they may spend more.
So that’s a partial advantage to California - the expensive homes force a higher savings rate, naturally.
But, at retirement age, a lot of their net worth is tied up in their home. So to unlock a lot of those savings they need to move to a lower cost of living state like Arizona, Nevada, Florida, etc.
While the Texans can just stay in their paid-off house.
So yeah it’s just different.
Texans are just paying off their home throughout their life and staying in it. They have larger disposable income to go towards other stuff (kids, lifestyle) while Californians gotta pay that mortgage
It's not that they're "intuitively better" it's that prior generations of them have passes less insane state and local law and they're not at the tail end of a ~20yr industry boom so "pay down my house and cash out to somewhere cheaper" doesn't make sense as a retirement strategy for as many of them.
It all depends on how those things are calculated. Are you including home value in retirement savings or not?
To be fair it is not the city/elected officials who wants to retain the parking lots. The downtown redevelopment would probably make the city a lot of money.
It is the businesses around downtown who are pushing the save downtown campaign. I imagine the businesses contribute a fair chunk of revenue to the city now and have some influence .
Relative to say parts of Redwood City, or Palo Alto. Menlo park has a fair amount of student-ish 4 Unit lots, so it not all zoned SFU.
TBF a lot of the complaints are coming from businesses that are _probably_ renting. There is absolutely the chance that their business will go under due to construction disruptions before they can benefit from the increased foot traffic once the development is complete.
And, of course, once the development is complete, and the value of their land goes up, so too does their rent....
It is just not rent that will go up.
Menlo Park today has free and ample parking downtown. RWC is paid parking anywhere within few blocks of downtown, all the garages are paid, the garage on Jefferson Av charges more on Sundays. Same thing in San Mateo downtown.
To be fair, parking structures always look and feel pretty distopian.
I like the approach of making downtowns walkable and having a bit of parking at the periphery of downtown, along with good public transit. Encourages people to use public transit to get to town in the first place. Downtown residents can use transit or a zipcar or equivalent when the need to get out of town, instead of devoting a ton of space downtown for storing their cars.
Not sure if that approach is really practical, but if it can be made to work it is much nicer.
Well, in Menlo Park they're just flat surface parking lots, not even multi-story structures. The planned development is multi-story housing with parking underneath.
To be fair, I am boycotting the (similar) underground garage over at Springline because they're clearly made only for people in Range Rovers or whatever. They have those AWFUL ticket machines, set too far back (to avoid getting hit) and too high to access from a normal car.
Is the Bay Area really dealing with ticket machines? The global capital of technology? Just bill by plate or something.
The global capital of technology has absolute horrid infrastructure and is not on the forefront of any municipal technologies.
There's a big disconnect from people building new projects and local governance, and it's growing. When tech companies started even providing buses for their employees, because local government is too fractured and incapable of running needed bus routes, and can not coordinate across county and city borders, local activists were extremely upset that tech workers were not driving their personal cars and instead using environments-saving and traffic-reducing transit.
I got billed by plate at gravel parking lots in places in Iceland where there were probably more sheep nearby than human residents. Embarrassing.
Or develop 12 competing apps that each only work in different lots.
A fellow Swede I presume?
It's extra silly cause I once parked in central Oslo and got the ticket mailed to my sthlm address. No fuss, no problem, super easy!
We got a lot to learn from our neighbours....
No not a Swede at all this is funny! That was my experience parking in the Washington, DC area last year.
Super easy unless you have moved recently, then you don't get the bill and end up years later in collections for the original amount plus a million late fees added on.
Nah it arrives electronically to kivra, which is like email except you log in with your social security number and it's only for "official business" like invoices and whatnot.
Unfortunately here in the US we are pathologically incompetent.
One day we will attempt to roll out such a system. We'll pay McKinsey billions to develop and operate it, set no targets, and they will take the money and disappear for 10 years, and then deliver some unusable website developed by one offshore developer.
That sounds great! In the US the phrase you used "mailed to my sthlm address" would never mean anything other than physically sending a paper bill to your house.
Yeah I phrased that wrong. I wanted to emphasize that I don't live in Norway. I found it extra impressive that it worked so seamlessly even with a foreign car. Oh well.
The reasons why the Bay Area is the global capital of technology are absolutely totally unrelated to the quality of infrastructure or the policies of local government there.
It’s mainly due to the state of US technological advancement decades ago when the whole thing got started, the general US-level business-friendly environment, and the presence of an extremely prestigious (especially in science and tech fields) university nearby.
The specific reason is that William Shockley's mother lived in Palo Alto. Stanford gets the credit but in reality it had nothing to do with the decision.
I would bill by ticket machine too if it was my job to collect money on the parking. I’m guessing that the amount of people who never pay is much higher than zero so it really only makes sense when you have such high throughput that the slowdown is detrimental (such as the Bay bridge).
I don't know if that's a boycott, or just going some place you like better.
I park on the street for free. (The lot is also free in monetary cost, for the short windows I'd park there, but the hassle is larger than the hassle of finding street parking).
> They have those AWFUL ticket machines, set too far back (to avoid getting hit) and too high to access from a normal car.
Are you sure it's the ticket machines? Around here, the ticket machines have stayed the same, but it's now impossible to use them without stopping the car and getting out, because car manufacturers have decided I need eight inches of empty space between myself and the side of the car.
That eight inches is called "side impact protection" and, while it sucks to not be able to comfortably rest your arm on the window sill, it is pretty important to have in the event of an impact to the side.
I liked it when my car could fit inside a parking space, personally.
Safety people: <Ruins cars>
Also safety people: "These goddamn consumers have started buying SUVs"
I'm not saying this is you personally but the trend is pretty goddamn clear.
I drive a 90s Miata. Trust me, I hate the SUV trend as much as anyone else, and I also recognize that car design from the 90s is not exactly the pinnacle of crash safety.
> To be fair, parking structures always look and feel pretty distopian.
What a lot of the new buildings in Austin are doing is putting an attached garage directly behind a 4 + 1 mixed use development - the street-facing facade is the apartments and shops, and the garage is directly behind (and usually attached) to the apartments. You basically never see them.
They put it in the middle usually. It’s literally called the “Texas Doughnut” — a 5 over 1 surround a parking garage.
Ha, today I learned.
Babies throw tantrums, your job as a parent is to not give in to their demands. But California has a weakened state government due to the governor's will-he-wont-he bid for higher office some time between now and 2092, he's afraid to make waves. If it were me I'd say: you need more housing. And if the fine people of Menlo Park say no, then let them maintain El Camino Real themselves. A home depot employee will be by to unlock the shovel cage for you shortly.
Menlo Park isn't comparable to Austin though - Austin's equivalent of Menlo Park would be a country club CDP in the Austin Hills like Rob Roy.
A better comparison would be ATX against San Jose.
Just like how the "rich" residents of Santa Clara county know that you want to live in Campbell, Los Gatos, Menlo Park, Los Altos, Loyola, etc, similarly rich Texans and Austinites live in the Hills.
The reality is the residents of Menlo Park and Rob Roy don't want your type, and in a lot of cases tend to be the same people as there aren't many places left where you can trail run, bike, eat Michelin star ramen, and not pay income tax.
Just because we make good money in tech, it doesn't make us "them". I highly recommend reading the works of Pierre Bourdieu with regards to cultural capital.
Menlo Park has a higher population density than Austin...
The majority of it is not Bel Air...
> The majority of it is not Bel Air...
Menlo Park was never a "middle class" town. The 101 was always the (literal) redline.
The median household income is $210K [0] and it's the same demographic, unlike historically lower middle class but now upper middle class San Mateo [1].
A Menlo Park home address that is on the correct side of the 101 opens the same doors in the Bay that a Bel Air address does in Los Angeles or an Austin Hills address does in Austin.
Rich doesn't equal conspicuous, especially in the Bay Area - "Wealth is quiet, rich is loud, poor is flashy"
[0] - https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/menloparkcityca...
[1] - https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/sanmateocitycal...
> opens the same doors in the Bay that a Bel Air address does in Los Angeles or an Austin Hills address does in Austin.
West Lake Hills perhaps (which is not technically Austin) - Austin Hills is not remotely prestigious.
> West Lake Hills perhaps
Yep! That's what I meant - Rob Roy, Westlake Hills, Barton Creek around the country clubs, and Lost Creek. Those are the equivalents of much of Menlo Park and Atherton, and I know of a number of people who lived in Menlo+Atherton and moved to those areas of Austin in order to front-run taxes in the run-up of some significant exits.
Which side is the rich side?
280 to El Camino is "oldish rich" (made their millions in the 1980s-2000s), the El Camino to 101 is "new rich" (made their millions in the 2000s-2010s), and 101 to Meta used to be a Samoan ghetto (literally, redlining was legal until the 60s and unofficially the norm until the 90s) until they were gentrified out.
The old money (rich before tech) to the West of 280 in Woodside and Portola Valley.
South of 101
Menlo Park people are pretending that they are Atherton.
Austin's example shows what happens when a city actually follows through and allows density where it makes sense
If you owned a 600sqm allotment in Menlo Park surely you'd want it to stay a parking lot and not become vibrant apartment blocks.
TIL Menlo Park claims to have a personality
[dead]
[flagged]
I think this is a bunch of retrospective justification when the truth is that home-owners vote against supply expansion measures that may decreases their home value (their main investment).
Just like how people pretend "I'm actually super concerned about emergency vehicles" when it comes to replacing a car lane with a bus/bike lane. It sounds better than admitting they don't want to be inconvenienced, they'd rather have an extra car lane than someone else get a bus/bike lane, etc. So the hand waving begins.
Austin is unique even in Texas for its aggressive construction boom + decreased rent, so it's not even a Texas thing.
> In California people are very scared of poor people because they tend to commit more crime and the justice system refuses to prosecute and imprision them, especially if they are criminally insane.
Funny to read this when it’s common knowledge the rich commit so much tax evasion the IRS doesn’t bother investigating, and tech billionaires like Thiel are regularly abusing hard drugs and spewing unhinged theories about the end times and an AI god. You can just say you don’t like poor people. You don’t have to use some statistical fallacy that supports your confirmation bias.
The reality is that the visibility of criminal acts is inversely correlated with income. Why would a rich criminal spray paint graffiti on a building when they’re making so much money off white collar crime that they can just buy it and do whatever they want?
That’s not even getting into all of the things that should be crimes but aren’t, because the ultra wealthy and their megacorps can legally bribe politicians to their hearts content. Or the child sex trafficking. Epstein’s buddies weren’t living rough.
What you pointed out doesn’t change the argument. That IS a main driver for NIMBYism in wealthy areas, even if they’re wrong or misguided, even if it’s just false perception. Don’t really know how doing some whataboutism will change that. I think most people would likely choose to live next to a tax avoider over a violent criminal?
[flagged]
Ah yes, an ad hominem is an excellent way to deflect from reality. Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
Performative ignorance is when you dispute something supported by tons of empirical evidence with a few anecdotes and whatever you just made up and expect me to spend time refuting it. It's the same technique flat earthers and young earth creationists use.
[dead]
I don't expect Menlo Park to keep it character for long as Silicon Valley CEOs are fleeing the state.
So glad we don't need to re-write the first chapter of almost every economics 101 textbook!
it's crazy that people nowadays seriously question basic market pressure being a thing
I think the issue is that we have under built so much for so long, that it often feels futile to build more. NYC can feel like this, because due to zoning and general difficulties in building, all that seems to happen is a new building goes up and drives up rents. But if we built 20x more of those and sated demand, we would. On a micro level though, it can appear that "new building makes rents go up."
And this pattern repeats across the US. Add in the fact that people want to freeze the area they moved to in time (like suburbs refusing to increase density, even urban yet car reliant neighborhoods panicking if a single parking space is removed: https://hudsoncountyview.com/outraged-jersey-city-residents-...) and we get constant blockers to housing supply growth we so desparately need.
Its been frustrating watching the half baked measures to make housing "more affordable" by making mortgages cheaper when really they need to stimulate the supply side. It seems like an easy political win IMHO as long as you can sell it up front- stimulate GDP by juicing house building, and everyone gets cheaper housing. Just keep it under control lest you end up in a China type situation.
I'm with you, but many people still question this. Here's a recent pre-print paper that was in the news arguing that inequality, not lack of supply, is the real source of housing affordability: https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/95trz_v1
The black pill about that story isn't that a (crappy) preprint exists, it's that it got coverage in the press and was viral on social sites.
Telling people lies that they want to believe has always been profitable.
Who are the people that “seriously question basic market pressure being a thing”? Am I missing something?
Just look through the comments on any post about housing or immigration and you will see hordes of them.
Are the comments in the thread with us right now? At best, from what I’ve seen, this is a strawman against the people that argue that building housing is not the only thing that should be done regarding housing. I’ve seen no comments that claim we shouldn’t build housing to alleviate the housing crisis.
Most comments that I see are about how from a policy perspective it’s more complicated. There’s no single “build more homes” magic wand that works for every market. And in some markets there are real people with real issues who could be helped by temporary policies that make landlording less profitable on the margins while people figure out how to best “build more homes” for that market.
I think it's not that people question free market dynamics, it's that they question a market is free in the first place.
For example, healthcare in the US is basically exempt from typical free market dynamics like supply and demand because of how the market works. Consumers don't choose, everyone has a moat and parents, and costs are often subsidized.
100%. I see more and more young people appreciating Carlin’s “it’s a big club and you ain’t in it” quote because they have come to terms with the rigged game. I think the GFC was the starkest exemplar of this.
but the market doesn't need to be free for basic market pressure to have an overwhelming effect
Every leftist European nimby party comes to mind.
There was an article on HN front page a few months ago which stated(paraphrased) "building more housing to reduce prices is a right wing ideology that doesn't match reality" or some such. I'll reply here if I find it.
hn.algolia.com is a great search interface. I searched “housing” and top posts in the past year and didn’t see anything related to your quote on the first two pages. Maybe I need to search deeper.
What I paraphrased wasn't in the article headline but inside the text, almost in passing.
The best I could find was a couple of comments from two years ago which have a similar theme.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39206707
Housing and immigration are two areas where people just can't accept basic economics. You can see some olympic level mental gymnastics routines all over this comments section.
They are often happily blinded by ideology. Try to tell someone in Britain that wages have been seriously suppressed due to mass immigration and most of them will look at you like you’re stupid.
Immigration is not so obvious. Each immigrant contributes to both supply and demand.
Yes, supply of workers and demand for houses. So not only is mass immigration cutting wages, it's increasing the cost of living. British people are being squeezed between stationary salaries, rampant inflation, insane taxes and huge cost of living increases.
Also supply of houses and demand for workers.
Eh, people really need to be questioning econ 101 more often.
It's built upon untrue assumptions
- infinite buyers / sellers
- perfect information
- no switching / transaction costs
---
The article itself has 3 different year ranges provided so I'm not sure how you can use it as evidence. Plus overall the rent is still up by a lot since 93% - 4% is still at least 80%.
- Rents increase by 93% from 2010 to 2019
- Housing increase from 2015 to 2024 (this overlaps with when rents increased ...)
- Rents fell from 2021 to 2026 by 4%
Housing is also really weird:
- the main input (land) is also an output, so when the price of the output goes up, so does the value of the input.
- economies of scale don't really work, due to the impracticality of transporting the good (houses) and fitting the good inside a machine (in house "factories", normal workers go inside the house and work on it by hand; not a lot changes compared to traditional construction)
- more supply in one area increases the value (and therefore demand) in that area, so it's not actually clear-cut whether building more would reduce the price more than it increases it, at first glance.
First year economics doesn't ignore any of this. There's behavioral economics and microeconomics, for example.
That may be true recently but there was alot of effort required to unseat Homo economicus as the sole building block of economic theory.
Ah yes, that 150 year old meme reflexively copy-pasta'd by internet commenters since the days of usenet to refute basic concepts like supply and demand.
"Lol economists are dumb they think humans are robots!"
No they don't. Sorry, we won't be throwing away an entire field of human endeavor based on a straw man caricature that isn't true.
We don't call physicists dumb and throw out their ideas because the real world isn't a perfect vacuum either. They know this, don't be silly.
We do throw out everything from physics 101.
The movement of satellites is not modeled using distance = speed * time. It would do well to consider if econ 101 is an accurate way to model the world since for other domains the 101 course is not.
Yet the overwhelming factor in modeling the movement of those satellites is still distance = speed * time.
The existence of nuance and external factors don't negate the original principle.
The equivalent to arguments made by 'economics deniers' in this thread would be if you argued: the satellite moving at 7.8 km/s actually causes the earth to spin 8 km/s faster, so trying to make the satellite move faster makes it go slower! Applying acceleration doesn't help!
No. Making the satellite move faster generally makes it move faster. Building more housing generally makes it cheaper.
Let's not do the HN thing and get lost in pedantry.
> The existence of nuance and external factors don't negate the original principle.
Eh, ok throwing out all of physics 101 is a little strong. But you still don't use the original formulas you learned to do actual analysis. So using the basic models from econ 101 to do analysis can lead you to incorrect answers (but also correct ones; from a False premise you can imply both True and False; see "Material Implication" [1]).
So sure on a forum like HN it can be appropriate to use basic econ 101 logic but when somebody is trying to be an expert or write an article for thousands+ people you should really question why they're only using 101 logic.
> Let's not do the HN thing and get lost in pedantry.
Lets actually do the not HN thing and read the article.
There's too little rigor in the article to support the argument in the title. The articles _own numbers_ are that after building 120k housing units the rent went up 85% (4% decrease after 96% increase). Just looking causally at this the only data in the article supports more housing = more rent; the article is only casual observations so little reason to do anything else ...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_algebra#Secondary_oper...
I mean “Econ 101” is an equally dumb meme. The laws of supply and demand have their limits, otherwise there would be nothing to study after Econ 101.
There's loads of other inefficiencies as well. Moving is a huge hurdle. It's difficult to find housing that meets dozens of conditions, and even then you don't respond to supply + demand imagined equilibrium, you pay more or pay less to live near friends or family. It's something you only do a handful of times in your whole life. Trying to use the same analysis as for buying a can of beans is absurd. You might need to take econ 201 before you understand why econ 101 is wrong about housing.
> It's difficult to find housing that meets dozens of conditions
Correct. That's why when there's more housing you're more likely to find what you need.
False. Even if you don't move, people move all the time and that moves the needle for everyone.
“People like to drink certain kinds of beer” and “some people don’t drink beer often” are not arguments against supply and demand driving beer prices.
Prices in massively inefficient markets do not follow the supply + demand equilibrium. Beer is not an inefficient market. You're doing the absurd comparison.
It's more correct to say supply and demand still drive the overall average, but in a high-friction market of unique items, every single case is still a unique case. It's not like moving wheat bushels or RAM chips. When they sell oil, they mix up all the oil from different producers in the same reservoir, in the same tanks. Electricity travels in the same wires. Housing is nothing like that.
"they mix up all the oil from different producers in the same reservoir"
Only when avoiding sanctions, not normally. And housing does follow economic principles no matter how much you wish that wasn't so.
Housing doesn't follow economic principles that only apply to homogeneous bulk products, that's the point. Electricity is almost perfectly homogeneous. Then you have things like wheat and bread, which vary in quality but are close substitutes. Housing's at the complete opposite end of the spectrum. No two units are alike and they only trade every few years at best.
housing isn’t an inefficient market. It’s surprisingly liquid for how large the purchases are
You need Econ 301 and stats 101 to see Econ 201 is wrong.
Not really, it used to be the case that a full third of Americans moved every year. Obviously life is more complicated than econ 101, but it's also obvious that a current undersupply of housing is one of, if not the primary, drivers of home pricing. Admittedly other factors like the governments interference in the home loan space have also had large effects on the market over the last century.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2025/03/america...
I'm not clear: does Econ 201 inform us as to how demand and supply are not related to price?
Yes, you learn why supply + demand curves do not actually describe many markets
So, if instead of installing a bunch of apps, setting up search filters, and refreshing browser tabs on my phone ever 15-30 minutes, then the instant something meets my parameters I immediately leave work and, if possible, make a deposit on a new place, I open an app and find 5000 places meeting my requirements, meet them when I'm not working and on my time, and tell them I like a different one better so I'll hold off before making a decision, makes no difference on the price?
it says "it's complicated".
Yes, it describes human nature better than psychology. We can’t fight even knowing about it.
the snark is quite rich when reading beyond the headline makes clear this was anything but a free market solution.
OP wasn't talking about free markets but supply and demand.
You should read again. The reforms made the market more free.
I don't think this is simple econ 101. Yes with more houses we should expect lower prices, but also with high prices we should expect more houses produced. All that is econ 101, but that second econ 101 prediction isn't happening. I would guess that some will chalk it up to vaguely (though not necessarily wrong) jerks/idiots blocking it. Whether it's because nimbyers want to keep their home values (what we should expect from econ) or it's broken city politics, there are lots of things going on here. It's more complicated.
They also teach you about elasticity in econ 101. It's foolish and anti-intellectual to insist that the housing market has only two factors, while simultaneously condescending about your understanding of economics shows that you really don't understand economics, it's more about your ego.
> It's foolish and anti-intellectual to insist that the housing market has only two factors
Elasticitiy moderates the effect. It doesn't reverse it. Increasing housing supply decreases housing costs. A lot of people are venally or ideologically motivated against accepting this. Our housing crisis is a political choice. (Note: I'm a homeowner.)
This reminds of a fun fact I remember learning in university.
Elasticity is the relationship between demand and supply, and there are actually very rare instances where it can be negative (where demand increases with price).
These are called Giffen goods.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giffen_good
Explanation (that I remember)
Inelastic demand is when a good is demanded so much, that an increase in price has little affect on the total quantity (people still demand it, think like addictive substances)
So a perfectly inelastic product would be a straight line where any amount is demanded at any price.
So having the curve keep going it would get a positive slope, where higher price makes demand go up.
If I remember the example I was given was food during a famine. Supply is already low, but an additional pressure on price is the known shortage. The idea being that as the price goes up people see it as harder to get.
It’s been so long since I studied the subject so I might have gotten some things wrong here.
> These are called Giffen goods.
The terminology is actually split; sometimes they're called Giffen goods and sometimes they're called Veblen goods.
The two types have identical behavior, so there's no good reason to have two different names, but in concept Giffen goods are something poor people buy, while Veblen goods are something rich people buy.
(There is a difference if you're willing to look at responses to changes other than a change in the price of a good: if you give a household more money, it will increase consumption of Veblen goods, but decrease consumption of Giffen goods.)
Cool! Thanks!
> A lot of people are venally or ideologically motivated against accepting this.
That’s the story of the last 10 years among certain types that keep regurgitating obviously wrong concepts.
> That’s the story of the last 10 years
The urban orthodoxy is around demand rationing. Supply-side arguments are incredibly new. The evidence cuts in one direction. (Unless we want a hukou system.)
The parent comment never claimed that the housing market only has two factors. You’re arguing against a strawman of your own creation.
I live in Austin. In the 1980s, there was a building boom that collapsed.
Austin had 23%(!) apartment vacancy in 1990 after a collapse that started in 1985.
It wasn't until about 1993 that prices returned to 1985 nominal values.
At the time it wasn't code changes that caused this but excessive lending by Savings and Loan banks. You can research the S&L crisis that required a federal bail out. This cause massive bankruptcy and the creation of an entity all the Resolution Trust Corporation to sell all this near worthless property for pennies on the dollar. This affected all of Texas and also Louisiana and Arizona.
For Austin this was great as a whole as rents were ridiculously cheap for 10-15 years and it was an economic and cultural catalyst, drawing in hordes of young people from around the country.
That's a really useful historical reminder
Good news - experimental verification of the law of supply and demand!
I'm sure the analysis is welcome though and I hope policy makers try to learn from this. We could densify most american cities quite a lot more.
No it's not. It's 2 cherry picked data points with a sample size of 1 of a complex system with multiple confounding factors such as a pandemic
You can look at other neighborhoods such as palms in Los Angeles, which has the most aggressive housing build out in all of California. Median rent has increased - sometimes more housing can create more demand
Did rents in Palms go up because they built housing or because it's a great location in a city with increasing rent almost everywhere?
Or in other words, is there any econometric evidence that building housing increased rents in Palms, or could we be confusing correlation with causation?
Exactly. You can't just look at two data points in a system with hundreds of confounding variables, many of them unquantifiable and say "aha! This simple linear equation of supply and demand, that they teach in middle school, is correct!"
That's not science, it's dogmatism
What if the people in power don't want prices to go down?
The problem isn’t the powers that be. A lot of regular homeowners fight new developments tooth and nail. And many blue states unfortunately give them a lot of tools to do so.
People want to blame the 1% for massive wealth ineqality, but when it comes to unaffordable housing, a basic necessity of life, the villain is actually about 30% of the population that is rich enough to own homes, act like rentiers, and block access to neighborhoods and opportunities.
The greatest inequality difference is that between those with housing assets and those without. Yes the 1% are a problem but they are not the reason that young people can no longer afford housing without generational wealth, that's all due to the seemingly normal guy that's enforcing a class system based on home ownership versus non-ownership.
I think the majority of the electorate very much blame the people you're talking about. Who do you think progressives and MAGA refer to when talking about neoliberals? They're talking about the corporate class; those that care more about money but willing to play up useless culture war issues that impact small amounts of people.
> A lot of regular homeowners fight new developments tooth and nail.
In a system where those with more capitol have more power, homeowners are the powers that be. They're more likely to vote and have more money for discretionary spending - like donating to politicians.
People have been steered for decades into using their home as a vehicle for retirement. Of course they want to protecet it.
I'm not blaming individual homeowners, there are very strong incentives for treating homes like retirement investments. It's an issue of policy, but we do have to address that it is also causing rent to rise and contributing to the homelessness crisis.
> A lot of regular homeowners fight new developments
Which is self interested. The paradox is renters being turned against their own interests by large landlords pitching anti-gentrification.
Don’t know why this is being downvoted, that’s exactly right. One needs only to attend a local city meeting about any smallest step towards more development to see how the voters think.
It's typically local residents who fight this. There's a "fuck you, got mine" tendency to pull up the ladder once you've made it.
It is more complicated than that. A few years back when my youngest entered 1st grade, I attended some meetings where the superintendent talked about school expansions in the pipeline due to confirmed property development projects.
Namely, when new housing is added, there are infrastructure considerations and corresponding expenses that translate to higher taxes. Civil planners have formulas for how much the student population will grow based on the housing density/type.
Schools built on parcels based on 1970's population now have to expand to fit more students or the township has to find and acquire new land to build a new school.
That requires raising taxes for bonds. A new school is several million dollars and then hiring staff. NJ has a legal limit of 25:1 in elementary. Add 100 students and you add at least 4 teachers that have to be supported by taxpayers. Expand the lunchroom, build a new gym, purchase new computers, all the ways up the chain for the next 12 years.
If you ever look at your municipal tax bill, you will find that education is going to be the biggest expense by far.
On top of that, roads may need to be widened. New roads have to be built and maintained. Municipal staff may need to increase.
Some services may actually benefit from economies of scale (waste collection). Most will not.
Imagine you bought a house in 1970 (i.e. my development) and you were paying $1000 annual property taxes. Now your property taxes are $12000 because of the increased spend on infrastructure and increased assessed value. You're a retiree and you've paid taxes for 2 or 3 generations of students. You live on a fixed income and your property taxes are a higher and higher proportion of your income. What do you do? Mortgage the house to pay taxes to fund more growth?
The problem is exacerbated because obviously people want to go where the good schools are, where it's low crime, good infra, easy access to transportation. That drives demand and puts pressure on services while also raising taxes to pay to fund municipal bonds for growth.
End of the day, my personal belief is that housing is a right. But I can also see why middle class folks, retirees end up pushing back when they get the bill in the form of increased property taxes. I've lived in my house 10 years now and my taxes have gone up ~$3500 in that time. Every school in the township had to expand to meet population growth with the additional units. Sure, my home value went up as well, but I can't cash that out. I can't imagine how it feels for retirees that are living in a family home here.
This is a really well-thought out comment, and I agree with just about everything in it. One comment I'd like to call out for additional consideration is the comment on retirees being priced out due to rising property taxes.
In my experience, most retirees have more rooms/land than they can make productive use of. I feel that there should be some pressure for them to sell that property to families who can use it more productively. That's the stick, but I feel there needs to be a carrot, where builders are constructing homes that these retirees will be drawn to. There are retirement communities in the southern US like "The Villages" https://www.thevillages.com/, but as the population here ages, we need to build these everywhere so retirees can move into the communities that meet their needs without being forced to leave their cities.
But there's nuance here, too: families. My wife's side is a big Italian family. Everyone's here. What do you do if your grand kids are all here? How do you support your adult kids and help them achieve financial security? Or leave and secure your own? Neither is an easy choice.
There are here as well. The reason they work here, as far as I understand it, is that they count towards "affordable housing" units that are mandated by state law here in NJ. But I put that in quotes because these units in 55+ communities are often honestly still quite expensive, especially if you've already paid off your mortgage decades ago.The real issue seems to be the top-heavy tax system that forces local governments to rely on property taxes. A local income tax would make them more capable of building and maintaining infrastructure, but that would require lowering taxes at higher levels. (Income taxes are superior to wealth taxes in the sense that income tends to correlate better with the ability to pay tax.)
If the demand for housing is high, zoning fees can also be used to make developers pay for the infrastructure upfront. If done properly, their impact on housing costs should be minimal, as they mostly extract some of the added value created by the zoning from the landowner.
The developer for sure does not want to build a school and even if they build the school, they are not going to be paying for the teachers that are going to need to support the increased student body for every decade into the future; that's on the taxpayers.
The underlying assumption is that laws will be changed when necessary. If it's not possible to do that, most issues probably can't be fixed.
More fundamentally, this is related to the principle of subsidiarity that is occasionally popular in the EU. Everything the government does should be done by the lowest level that can reasonably do it. And to enable that, local and state governments should have sufficiently wide tax bases.
Laws are voted on by the people. And if the municipal elections are scoped to current residents, they will vote to not expand in almost every case.
At the state level, we have housing laws that mandate ratios of affordable housing. Many townships faught this in court (and lost) because schools and infrastructure are capital projects. Bonds are secured today against some future tax base.
Don't forget that developers and investors are voters too (and lobbyists) who are going to vote against the municipalities.
My point: it is a nuanced situation and not as simple as "Got mine FU" or "just build more". Build where? How do you pay for it fairly?
People often vote to support new housing, as long as the entire system works reasonably well.
My solution was to widen the tax base to make the system work better.
The incentives around property taxes do not support significant new construction. If housing becomes more affordable, tax revenue per capita goes down, while local government spending stays the same or increases. Local governments should therefore not rely too much on property taxes.
Income taxes, on the other hand, are good. You are taxing things you want to grow, and you get more tax revenue when your policies are good to the people. Local governments might want to collect more income taxes and less property taxes.
When the demand for housing is high, zoning creates significant windfall to the landowner. Some of this windfall can be taxed to support infrastructure construction.
Unfortunately, municipal policies here in the US rarely has an effect on income. Income is by and large affected by state and national level policies. Very few people work where they live so municipal income taxes do not make sense to me.
It's a real issue, but the solution is probably just to have more of these decisions at the metro area or state level. Otherwise you just get specific cities or neighborhoods that say 'no' to housing, and that causes severe economic/financial problems (see: coastal California).
Housing growth is necessary, but it should also be spread out.
Except you get exactly the same opposition in places where schools are funded by a higher level of government
and if anything you taxes will go down because they are now spread across more households.
I can't answer for different states and municipalities, but I know about mine and NJ based on how we had to expand every school in the district over the last 10 years.
These are big capital expenses. My property taxes have never gone down, even as my township has expanded.
Part of this is that taxes are calculated on assessed value. Where I'm at, assessed value is a combination of lot size + structural improvement. Tax bill is assessed value * rate. Assessments have never gone down. The more people want to move here, the more values go up, the more capital projects need to be undertaken before new tax payers are contributing. It may take years to build a new development, but the multi-million dollar budget to expand the school and staff up teachers has to happen in tandem, before the new tax base exists.
My lot is from the 70's. It's huge. New lots are significantly smaller. Townhouses and apartments are very dense. New development does not yield savings in taxes in practice unless it is commercial development.
A big piece of farmland contributes taxes, but requires little in services. Convert that 50 acres into 50 units and now you need much more services and infrastructure compared to the 50 acre farm.
You underestimate just how much schools and teachers cost. Those 50 units might add 50-100 students. Capital projects start even before the units finish to prevent overcrowded schools. Contracts are signed for garbage and snow removal if 5 of those units are occupied or 50.
It's just as much "change is scary" and "I like this as it is." It's a very human reaction.
I dont think its just that. Nimbys also see:
- many new building being very ugly (side note: ugly buildings no matter how green get torn down and are this not as green as building that are beautiful)
- increasing density bringing increased crime
- increased density actually turning out to be less efficient on a per capita tax basis (this is always wild to me, cities should be spending much less per capita than rural areas but arent)
They are the ones who show up at local political fundraising galas and constantly report local issues influencing municipal/state priorities.
Although it's not just NIMBY. There's a million rules about building housing and developing land from zoning, environmental, indigenous, or social ends. Which are arguably luxury self-benefiting priorities for people who already own houses. Plus all the activists who think the government can both make development extremely expensive via endless rules while affording to fund mass government housing at the same time.
Well, it's easy! Just get the majority of voters to hate each other enough that it's a moral boundary to vote together on any law, effectively limiting any meaningful change.
Over 60% of Americans are homeowners. In any functioning democracy, they ought to be the people in power.
That's the tyranny of the majority. This is not how a functioning democracy should behave.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
Isn't democracy "for the people by the people". Majority = more people. I guess "bad" majority shouldn't get a say?
How do you address the comment you replied to, though? Are you suggesting that in a population with, say, 300,000,000 people, it is okay for 150,000,001 to vote to oppress the remaining 149,999,999?
In any case, in America we often treat democracy as rule by the plurality anyway, it is often not a majority.
[dead]
After a few decades in California, I'm pretty sure there are no "people in power".
There are a lot of people with some power, which they use as they see fit. It all adds up to marginal and pseudo-random changes, as the state drifts toward... wherever it's going.
Trump explicitly said he wants to keep prices high [0]. This is the problem with a culture that views housing not as a need or a home, but as an investment. Pathological.
[0] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-trump-says-he-wa...
I just hope that people remember this is just one factor affecting quality of life and making a city work.
"Density at all costs" ignores a huge set of tradeoffs that are equally as damaging to a city. Things such as urban form, street experience, long-term adaptability, integration with existing fabric, economic resilience, etc. These are the things that make a city work in the long term.
I’m a big proponent of building more housing. But a lot of it is being doing in very short sided ways that lead to huge externalities.
Things such as urban form, street experience, long-term adaptability, integration with existing fabric, economic resilience, etc.
I have no idea what any of this is supposed to mean as a negative to people being able to walk around their neighborhood for essentials. It sounds like a classic vague "what about culture" argument that can't be explained.
We could but it’s not always just “good” to make things dense.
My hometown has had a huge push to add more housing to make things more affordable. What happened? Rents went down for a couple years then right back up. Except now the city has a bunch of more soulless condos and is horribly congested.
Sometimes preserving things and keeping them nice and simple even if it’s costs a bit of a premium is better.
Rents went down for a couple years then right back up. Except now the city has a bunch of more soulless condos and is horribly congested.
So there were a bunch of people who wanted to live there and now can.
Yes there is a cost to things like a bunch of congestion, decrease of natural spaces and generally soulessness. To paint this as only good is an insane position
Nobody lives there anymore, it's too expensive. /s
Note to the mods, /s is Reddit for sarcasm and this post is a good example of the psychology that leads to people support policies that increase housing costs even though they are designed to decrease housing costs.
> now the city has a bunch of more soulless condos and is horribly congested
The first bit is a taste thing; obviously lots of people view modern sprawl as "soulless" too.
But the latter point is just plain wrong. Dense housing IMPROVES traffic congestion and shortens commutes, always, everywhere, markedly. And it's for a bleedingly obvious reason: pack people in closer together and they don't have to travel as far to get where they're going. QED.
What you're imagining is some kind of fantasy hometown, which never increased in population and whose economy never developed. I mean, it's true. Forgotten ghost towns have very little traffic and quirky soulful architecture, c.f. Detroit. Everyone agrees that's a bad thing, though.
>But the latter point is just plain wrong. Dense housing IMPROVES traffic congestion and shortens commutes, always, everywhere, markedly. And it's for a bleedingly obvious reason: pack people in closer together and they don't have to travel as far to get where they're going. QED.
You are conflating things, adding more people to an area increases congestion, period. Having dense housing vs not dense housing is better for congestion IF the people are already there.
>What you're imagining is some kind of fantasy hometown, which never increased in population and whose economy never developed. I mean, it's true. Forgotten ghost towns have very little traffic and quirky soulful architecture,
It is a highly desirable area, there is no issue with the economy, it will continue to be desirable if we don't destroy it. The "growth always good" crowd is pretty nuts in their views
> adding more people to an area increases congestion, period
Yes, but so what? That's tautological. "Adding more people" isn't an independent variable, it's the economic ground truth over which we're trying to optimize.
The point is that if you need to build N units of housing to match your M added economic activity, building them denser leads to less congestion.
I mean, duh. This really isn't a complicated idea.
Again, you're imagining a single community divorced from inconvenient ideas like "population growth" or "economic development" (and even going so far as to conflate those with "destruction").
Well, sorry. It's desirable because it's developing. You don't get to change the minds of all the people that want to live there, all you can do is help them decide where to live.
more soulless condos
If you want soul move to New Orleans. Meanwhile people need comfortable places to live that don't make them indentured servants for the rest of their lives. I'll take a neighborhood with walkability and density over an old drafty brick building with no grocery stores any day.
"There is no downside to endless growth" ... lol
Is this supposed to be a reply to me? Who are you quoting?
No one ever said "no downsides", no one said "infinite growth" and the comment I replied to was just talking about standard apartments being "souless".
That is quite literally what you are implying
There is no universe where there is even a slight connection between what I wrote and your fake quote.
Developers not recouping their investment will discourage less housing in Austin in the future and it will become expensive again. A lot of our current housing shortages are from the build up in 2008 and an implosion of the entire industry (so that crafts people did not really exist for the next need for housing).
> Developers not recouping their investment
Last time I did the back-of-the-envelope math, financing permitting delays in San Francisco added 10% to the cost of new housing [1]. (Note: not the cost of permitting. Just the cost of financing the delay.)
This is deadweight loss that everyone in the transaction wins from eliminating. One could absolutely see lower prices and higher developer margins if this waste were cut.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38664780
> everyone in the transaction wins
Nobody ever thinks of the poor banks!
> Nobody ever thinks of the poor banks!
I thought about that. But a bank would rather lend in lots of high-confidence, low-duration deals than a small number of high-margin deals. The only people who lose when housing is built are incoment landowners. Because prices go down.
Usury-as-a-Service.
At scale banks only win as a facilitator of economic growth. As the adage goes they can only 3-6-3 if someone is making at least 7.
For the everyman banks not winning is catastrophic.
It's always been a service.
They can recoup the investment with volume (especially apartments) I would think? Sell 10 houses at 2 million each or 30 at 1 million each or however it breaks down.
Their land, labor, and material costs aren’t trivial. If thy were pulling a 10-20% margin before, how will increasing volume (which increases costs) make it up?
They reinvest that generous 10% to buy more tools and hire more talent to build 10x as many homes at 2%. Seems pretty straightforward to me
you should go into real estate development and make a fortune while solving a serious social problem for your country!
Taking on those liabilities is very risky when the next downturn happens and you're stuck with inventory.
So, do we just need to nationalize housing construction? If the free market apparently just can't handle it?
It’s not a free market construction issue at all, it’s a regulatory zoning and permitting issue.
Read the article and the peer comments here; Austin’s boom came about from reducing regulatory constraints.
Nationally remove the artificial restrictions and the supply side will fix itself.
Seems like a free market issue, any profit resulting from development is a free market issue. Your profit margins mean worse quality housing for people, and we can see what actual public housing programs look like with Singapore and Vienna where rents can typically cost less than 20% of median salaries:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVuCZMLeWko
As renown corporate welfare recipient Bezos would say: "your margin is [our] opportunity."
If the only thing stopping development is that rich developers want to make more money, then maybe we should get rid of the rich developers and let the public decide what to build. It couldn't be worse and it'd be 20-60% cheaper too.
> actual public housing programs look like with Singapore and Vienna where rents can typically cost less than 20% of median salaries
It could work, but both Singapore and Austria have less than 10 million people amd have a residency system where you just can't come in from the outside and get your subsidized housing in Vienna or Singapore. Singapore doesn't extend subsidized housing to its foreign residents, even permanent residents, and they make up 40% of the population!
Vienna is a bit better, as it applies it to all EU citizens who are resident in Austria, but you have to have lived at the same address there for 2 years, you just can't come in and claim one.
Did Austin really have any constraints holding it back? It’s still Texas. People still look at Houston as the canonical example of a city with no artificial constraints.
Public housing projects were and sort of still are a thing. Glass Amendment limits the number of units that can be produced but most areas are well below those limits and the larger issue is that there's no budget or political willpower for social housing projects right now.
There wasn't, but given the housing market right now, I don't know that there isn't.
Most blue metros in the US have a bad combination of high labor costs/low labor availability, high regulatory burden, wealthy conservative inhabitants who oppose construction, and working class people who are convinced that construction is gentrification.
I've been racking my brain trying ti figure out what it looks like for US cities to pull out of the housing crisis, and I think it's either going to take about a generation, or there will be some catastrophic event (Great Depression II, WWIII) that changes the political landscape so drastically that nobody can really oppose housing anymore.
Maybe? Obviously boom bust cycles that come from a free market are not very efficient.
We already have that. They're called "housing projects".
It's a balancing act. Build too much and developers make less money. Build too little and poverty and homelessness shoot up. Which side do you want to err on?
What evidence is there that developers won't break even or profit? The demand is clearly there, it's a seller's market.
Not so much any longer. The sales tap really turned off a while back and prices have been dropping a while here in Austin.
just because rents fell doesn't mean developers couldn't recoup their investment. 2008 was completely different.
Before moving to Europe, I always had this conception of Germany as being very good at organizing things, especially anything involving engineering. It doesn't take long to set this picture straight.
> From 2015 to 2024, Austin added 120,000 units to its housing stock—an increase of 30%
Compare that to the following [1]:
> The [...] government [...] intended to build 400,000 new homes annually, including at least 100,000 social housing units. This target was significantly missed from 2021 to 2024. In each year from 2021 to 2023, fewer than 300,000 new homes were built.
So, the city of Austin alone build on average 12,000 new housings each year, while all across Germany, they failed to build 300,000 new units. That's roughly a 1:25 ratio.
So, how much bigger is Germany than Austin, Texas? More than 80 times bigger.
Is that just because big projects don't scale linearly? I would think that that's definitely one factor. Also, I'm not convinced that economy of scale laws apply here, given that this is not one company building 300,000 houses.
But it does show a number of problems inherent in Germany's current situation: (a) shortage of skilled laborers; (b) high cost of labor; and (c) exorbitantly much red tape. These three points alone are among the most frequently cited factors that companies feel inhibit business, and it holds across disciplines.
[1] https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/08/20/vmjm-a20.html
Shortage of labor, high cost of labor and red tape are all consequences rather than causes. The cause is cultural. Property is the asset in much of the world and the value of property depends on limited supply. There's a disincentive to build more property, especially if you are a politician courting property owning voters.
In the U.K. people are indoctrinated from birth to believe that you work hard to save your money to buy a house and the value goes up so that you can retire with a valuable asset. Flooding the country with new property would completely upend that foundational part of U.K. culture.
If the governments of European countries wanted more property to be built, they could make it happen. The problem is, there is no appetite, they're walking a very fine line: more property must be built but property values cannot go down.
China is an extreme example (and has quality issues) but they have been building more than 10 million new homes per year for a long time, and now have tens of million of vacant homes that nobody wants to buy. That's a nightmare outcome for most Europeans who plan to retire on the value of their home.
The U.S. is fairly unique among western economies in that investing in the stock market has been a normal part of wealth building for the hoi polloi and while homes are important assets, they're not everything. In Europe, investing in the stock market is still novel, property is still the asset.
While it’s a different country my experience in Ireland and the Netherlands has been that there’s this bizarre contempt for builders. Like “I build homes and sell them to people for money” basically makes you satan incarnate. So housebuilding is bogged down in x% social, y% “affordable” (because apparently the goal of making all housing affordable by actually building enough is unthinkable) and very little gets built .
In Amsterdam the Green Party is celebrating making homes more affordable to buy…. By kicking out the people who were renting them. And they continue to say only 20% of developments can be market rate, aka for everyone. When you’re new to the city because you just got a job at booking.com or whatever you only can hope to get a flat in that 20% - the rest isn’t for the likes of you!
https://youtu.be/t05cFv02pzY
The Netherlands is a different kind of environment because there is a calculated policy of not doing anything that could reduce home values. This trickles through all policies for any action that could meaningfully solve the housing crisis.
Well it’s basically illegal to save money so it’s no wonder people use their house as an investment
Illegal?
I exaggerate but the tax structure is such that it encourages using your home as an investment vehicle. We'll see where things go with it but proposed changes to box 3 rules taxing unrealized gains may effectively destroy the possibility of saving any money in something that isn't your primary residence or a pension...
Both of you are really just beating around the bush of this whole issue in basically the same way as the very people you are complaining about, albeit at a different position. You both have a very elitist mentality towards this issue, i.e., “those peasants should move out of the way for superior people like me”, when what you are both describing is ironically failure of the privileged and powerful to understand what is causing the problems, conflicts, and tension; their own behaviors, actions, and mentalities.
Maybe the indigenous population you have contempt for wanting to preserve their communities and cultures don’t want your colonialist mindset of “those savages are not utilizing the land as I wish, so we can just overrule, overrun, and take it from them. How dare they not avert their eyes, for I have a job at booking.com or I go to UT/work at Oracle/Tesla.
It’s funny how you types never suggest that newcomers, i.e., colonizers, pay a high price for their colonization and that go to the indigenous, even if just to compensate them for the imposition and abuse. You always seem to insist on wanting to kick the indigenous from atop your high horse and demand they make way to your superiority as you abuse and exploit them. You’re not any different than any other past form of this colonist mentality, you want to steal from and abuse the indigenous.
I think it's funny how you think I would be "colonizing" the same neighborhood I literally grew up in.
I grew up in Austin. A bunch of people had kids there in the 1970's and 80's. More than where there before. So even if literally nobody had moved to Austin, there would still be a housing crisis without letting people build new housing.
Unsurprisingly, literally just letting the market respond to demand makes things more affordable for everyone. Yea, some people I don't like might move to Austin. They're probably not all bad. That's what multiculturalism is about.
Yes, we need to stop Amsterdam from being colonised by people from Groningen, I guess? I don’t understand what you’re getting at.
Ah yes, the well-known "indigenous population" of the Netherlands, one of the highest-GDP places in the world at present and of course a country with its own actual colonialist past. Do you really think these "indigenous" noble savages can't afford to pay for their own rents on a market-rate basis? They're keeping outsiders away (unless they pay outsized luxury prices, of course) out of pure unchecked privilege, not for any kind of high-minded culture preservation.
> (a) shortage of skilled laborers; (b) high cost of labor; and (c) exorbitantly much red tape
Does the red tape also stop the Syrian refugees from working in construction? It's a genuine question and I am not trying to be disingenuous.
The last time I was in Germany, I aw several constructions projects in Cologne and Frankfurt. However, I rarely noticed any non-white construction workers. This was quite unusual for a Texan like me because Mexican laborers drive all the construction in Texas if not most of the US.
>But it does show a number of problems inherent in Germany's current situation: (a) shortage of skilled laborers; (b) high cost of labor; and (c) exorbitantly much red tape. These three points alone are among the most frequently cited factors that companies feel inhibit business, and it holds across disciplines.
There are 9 billion people in the world, roughly half of them are perfectly capable of doing manual labor.
There is plenty of skilled labor, and the cost is frankly not that high, you just need to let them work.
Can we be serious here? There is one and only one cause of "high housing prices" and that is a political choice to make housing expensive.
Don't tell people what they can or can't do with their property.
Don't prevent people from being brought in to build stuff.
Do these 2 things and housing will be built if the price is truly high. Anything else is bullshit.
Like most other things, labor is highly regulated in Germany. You've got to understand that (from my experience as an outsider) it seems to be a country where it matters more what you are on paper (e.g., degrees, certifications, etc) than what you can actually do (e.g., practical experience). Not that the latter is not valued at all, but on the job market, it's often not sufficient.
Labor costs are determined by a lot of regulations - minimal wage, mandatory health insurance fees, mandatory pensions fees, etc. make labor costs in Germany much higher than the average in the West. So, it's all not that easy.
It is that easy.
Those regulations are choices. You can make different choices. You can make them tomorrow.
I'm sorry but i cannot take seriously any problem that essentially boils down to "We want it to be like this".
>Don't prevent people from being brought in to build stuff.
If housing is about supply and demand, surely the demand part matters too.
High cost of labour is positive.
Dumb question, many cities suffer from extremely high property (i.e. land) prices. I understand the NIMBY barrier. But I don't understand why it isn't more common to simply.. start a new city. Especially in countries like Australia where property prices are sky high and alternative places for setting up a new city are abundant. Maybe internet connectivity was previously a barrier, but now.. starlink.
I put this question to grok; its response:
> Unfortunately, Australia's legal, regulatory, financial, and practical systems make this extremely difficult (bordering on impossible at any meaningful scale).
Crazy that the reason we can't have an order-of-magnitude reduction in the cost of the most important thing people need (shelter) is not due to resource constraints, but man-made ones.
> Crazy that the reason we can't have an order-of-magnitude reduction in the cost of the most important thing people need (shelter) is not due to resource constraints, but man-made ones.
You say that as though reduction in cost of housing is a universal desire, but it isn't.
Suppose a couple of years ago you took a $500,000 loan to buy a $700,000 house, which you'll be paying off for the next 10 years. Would you like the market value of your house to decline substantially during that time?
If there's enough of the population bought into property, it won't be politically feasible to allow the value of homes to decline.
> Suppose a couple of years ago you took a $500,000 loan to buy a $700,000 house, which you'll be paying off for the next 10 years. Would you like the market value of your house to decline substantially during that time?
No, but when your city proposes a "missing middle" plan, watch who all comes out of the woodwork to scream murder at their research that shows that the projected effect of doing so will lower property values in my town from an 11.5% YoY average increase to a "mere" 9% YoY increase. You'd have thought the city was suggesting executing grandmothers in the streets.
(I cannot personally complain, I put down 10% on my home purchase here in 2021 and was able to get out of PMI due to having 20% equity against appraised value 366 days later, while only making required payments.)
Always comes back to the good ol “fuck you, I got mine.”
When the problem is particularly exacerbated, it's not even "I got mine", but rather, "I already went into eye-watering levels of debt and I'm still paying off the roof over my head."
So you made a half-million dollar leveraged bet and now want the government to rig the market so it pays off, at everyone else’s expense.
Being more desperate doesn’t make it any less selfish. It’s a universal desire for everyone who’s not selfish.
You can't start a new city. I city exists for all the things you can do. Your new city will have nothing to do because nobody lives there and there are no jobs to attract anyone to move.
that is why we build suburbs - they get anound this by being right next to a place with everything you want in a city
This is actually how you start a city though, you build a suburb and wait for it to grow into a city. This takes a really really long time so it's better to build near existing cities.
We don't observe this phenomenon occurring often in the modern day only because cities sprawl rapidly and so the evolution of the suburb becomes a borough of the existing city rather than a brand new city. Otherwise Brooklyn, Jersey City, Weehawken, etc. would all be considered new cities instead of being referred to as the NYC metro.
Sure you can. You just need enough land and money to start basic things like a post office, city hall, courthouse, roads, and a way to get power to the whole thing.
See Starbase, Texas
Starbase TX isn't a city in any sense other than a legal designation. It's a massive SpaceX industrial facility that has its own municipality similar to the way Disney World has one for its park.
I would expect the adjacent area to become some sort of a city over time. Suppliers will move nearby. Population, amenities and competition will follow. Unless of course SpaceX keels over before all this can happen.
See also: Orlando
Lots of examples in various countries in the 20th century prove you wrong.
Brasilia, Canberra, Islamabad, Reston, etc.
It obviously wouldn't be successful on day one, and it would take some kind of exceptional pressure to jump start it, but these things have been done in the past in the US and have been done recently in China. Not arguing these were good things, but they have happened before.
Think back to the old "company towns". Lowell, Massachusetts, built for a textile mill. Hershey Pennsylvania, built around a chocolate factory. Fordlandia, Brazil, a rubber plantation town. All of these were essentially cities and towns planned out around a central industry.
Similar things happened with the ghost cities in China with several of the big notable ones eventually actually growing into real, functional cities.
Once again, these have all kinds of messy histories and I'm not saying they're all good ideas. But just pointing out, it can be done.
And you proved my point why you can't today.
In this hypothetical, who is the individual or group of people that you envision would take the initiative to start a new city? What is their incentive to do so?
Subject to the same constraints. They tried to make one in California and it was blocked by others in the same county. It’s fine to be honest. Over time California will become less relevant to the US and Texas more so.
Water. You need clean water to grow a city. There isn't much of that to spread around anymore.
most people posting here are talking about california or texas - desert or near deserts where there isn't enough water.
however there are many places where there is more than enough water. East of the mississippi for example. other continents also have areas where there is plenty.
Except in the oceans, and near the oceans
There is no shortage of cheaper existing cities in Australia, but everyone wants to live in Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth.
The existing smaller cities just slowly wither.
Existing homeowners of the capitals have little interest in real estate prices dramatically dropping - would you?
You can, but it is damn difficult.
https://www.volts.wtf/p/is-the-brand-new-city-in-california
Why would you think that the same thing preventing density and new development in cities won’t stop your new city from growing before any building taller than 2 stories is built?
You might enjoy the novel A Town Like Alice by Nevil Shute.
People move to where there is jobs and money. You can't build the housing first, in our society you need capitalists to invest into building businesses to make people want to move there. And because we have spent decades killing small business in favor of corporations, you need corporations to decide to build where there are no people and they have to pay a small short term premium to attract workers. Except corporations don't like doing that because it is a longer term investment and they are worried about next quarter's numbers and maximizing executive level bonuses which means short term planning.
You could build all the housing first in China until recently…
China was dumping money into those cities for people to build businesses and paying people to move there though, it wasn't just the housing. So yes I agree it can work if you go beyond that, but not through applying capitalist principles first and foremost. If you tried to pay people to live in a specific city and pay them again to build a small local business in the US, people would go bonkers about communism and 99% of politicians and capitalist investors would spend every waking moment trying to stop it.
[dead]
[dead]
>>> The city changed zoning regulations to allow construction of large apartment buildings, particularly near jobs and transit. In 2018, voters approved a $250 million bond measure to build and repair affordable housing. Permitting processes were reformed to speed development and reduce costs.
All three of the five things most economists say about house building - and each one will hit house owning voters hard making it hard to replicate.
But none the less a triumph of common sense :-)
If you are in your terminal home, then yes, selfishly one would want the value to go up. But if you ever plan on moving to another home, sure dropping prices mean you get less, but it also means you pay less for your next purchase.
If you are in your terminal home, you also want low prices until the week before you eventually sell your house, as Texas has a high property tax rate to make up for the lack of state income tax.
> and each one will hit house owning voters hard making it hard to replicate
In a negative way?
As a home owner I don't really care about number go up. I'd rather it go up than down, sure. But staying level would also suit me fine.
Going down might be nice, perhaps I could buy the neighbor's house and combine the lots and make a nice set of row houses ...
House go up being important is really only needed if I'm using it for leveraged appreciation and doing something like dragging the cash out like a piggy bank; but that's a tiger that will have to be dismounted eventually.
As a homeowner, I want number to go up.
These things push against that.
Really, I'd prefer not having policies that tend to push up housing prices or discourage people from moving, but here we are, those types of policies are common.
> As a homeowner, I want number to go up.
Which is myopic.
As a homeowner, I want cities to be livable and affordable for those who want or have to live there. I don't care if the value of my home changes one cent. It's honestly kind of useless, because it's not like I can sell the house and buy a nicer one. All the houses are more expensive so it's always going to be a lateral trade. It only helps if you sell and move to a lower cost of living area.
It's kind of a sham that we have been conditioned to treat housing as an investment. Housing is where people live, it shouldn't be a commodity to be hoarded.
You can arbitrage markets for retirement, which is largely why people want their home values to increase. Their home is another form of 401k, and those mortgage payments aren't going to the bank or a land loed, they're going to their future.
It's a minority of people who are ok never capitalizing on their home value.
So you are saying you are a reactionary? Did you even try to read my entire comment?
I read it as presenting the reductionist side of the argument. Not saying that you personally believe it's good or right, only that it is what the majority of homeowners would think.
In that sense I agree with the current state of reality.
But what I am saying is that if we want to change that reality -- and it most certainly is possible to change -- it will take people rejecting the status quo. And there at least some of us who are already there.
As a home owner in Austin, I want my friends to be able to afford homes too and not feel like they have to move to have a yard and a family. Bring on the new construction.
What do you think the big paragraph at the end meant to convey?
As a former homeowner in Texas, I wanted the number to go down for lower property taxes. Taxes accounted for almost 1/3 of my monthly mortgage payments by the time I sold, and are a significant barrier to affordability of homes when values tend to vastly outstrip the rate of inflation leaving typical households struggling even with the homestead tax exemption.
The only people in the low income neighborhood I grew up in that could afford to weather this wave of out-of-state and investment banking homebuyers were those who were of retirement age and had their property taxes “frozen” at an affordable level.
Growth and fewer restrictions on what can be built makes your land more valuable. Apartment buildings in place of detached houses means rent prices can go down while land prices go up.
[dead]
As a homeowner I have zero objections to apartments built near jobs and transit (which also means away from my house). I also don't think apartments directly compete with single family housing. Like, they do, but only in certain situations and at certain levels of occupancy and the economy.
I am strongly opposed to building homes in stupid places, worsening traffic or overburdening infrastructure. This is why I tend to strongly oppose ADUs. If you want to turn my neighborhood into a dense urban environment, fine, but buy my house and my neighbors' houses, bulldoze them, and build proper urban density.
I also have a lot of skepticism regarding our housing shortage. You can go find people making the same arguments about housing shortfalls in 2006(underbuilt for years, new family formation, prices will remain high...). But then something happened, and it wasn't that 10% of Americans suddenly died. Suddenly we had more homes than we needed. Why? Because housing demand is related to economics. Now that we're slowing down reproduction and kicking out or scaring off immigrants we're likely setting ourselves up for another round of oversupply. "Good!" Well, tell that to the soon to be unemployed home builders.
Please bear in mind when you discuss "rent control" in the USA you really do mean the version you see in your locale. The idea that rent control sui generis failed worldwide is (in my personal opinion) a stretch.
Public housing also has many models. State owned. State funded but via cooperatives. Part state. state assisted co-buy. There's lots of models and so it is also a bit bogus to talk as if public housing has one shape.
I don't like the tone of input here, there is jeering and name calling and ACKSHEWALLY type responses so I am not going to continue, I just wanted to say: don't forget the lessons learned in Austin may not extend world-wide.
> Please bear in mind when you discuss "rent control" in the USA you really do mean the version you see in your locale. The idea that rent control sui generis failed worldwide is (in my personal opinion) a stretch.
Can you cite a version of it that worked?
From an economist? no. From rent activists? Sure. From The Mayor of London? He wants it. From economists in London? They don't want it. From rent activists in Berlin? It worked for their client pool. From economists in Germany? Mixed outcome.
The thing is, there is no neutral arbiter. The people who say it failed, are systems level reviewers with overal economic takes. The people (like me) who say it succeeded are looking at sub-cohorts of the housing economy who otherwise would be homeless.
Success is complicated.
I didn't say anything about who wants the policy in the future. I asked for an example where it achieved its stated objectives in the past.
> The thing is, there is no neutral arbiter.
There are, however, arbiters who pre-register metrics for success and then don't move the goalposts. That way people can at least see what you want and what you're willing to sacrifice.
[dead]
Anecdote: I lived in Austin from 2017 to 2021. My rent was always very cheap (my baseline is Brooklyn which I guess makes everything feel cheap. But my rent went up $50 for the first 3 years and then down $200 during Covid and I checked recently and my aptmnt is still the same price). Around the time I left everyone was buying up houses to rent and Airbnb. Very palpably felt the growing supply when it came to bnb's (the owners having a harder time competing for renters etc). It's hard not to be surprised in spite of the tremendous growth in that city
It's almost as though the well-known and proven method of building more housing works!
Similarly, the tested and proven solution to homelessness is providing housing up front. Don't have any requirements (employment, sobriety, etc) blocking housing. Those things are easier to achieve with a roof over your head.
At a glance, I'm a bit skeptical. It looks like they're cherry picking the high point for rent (the COVID spike).
> "Rents fell. In December 2021, Austin’s median rent was $1,546, near its highest level ever and 15% higher than the U.S. median ($1,346)."
Of course having more housing should, all things equal, lower rent. But all things certainly weren't equal, especially during this time period.
> In December 2021, Austin’s median rent was $1,546, near its highest level ever and 15% higher than the U.S. median ($1,346). By January 2026, Austin’s median rent had fallen to $1,296, 4% lower than that of the U.S. overall ($1,353).
For comparison, in San Francisco December 2021, the median one bedroom was $2810. In San Francisco March 2026, it was $3597, an increase of 28%.
It is well known that there was a brief moment in time when people were abandoning San Francisco and “moving to Texas” (mostly Austin) that coincides when the rents peaked in Austin. I’d be not surprised if that was also the time when San Francisco rents were down.
We’re seeing a reversal in trend when SF is hot again and Austin is not. So not exactly a straightforward comparison. It could explain the SF-> Austin and back trend.
So we've got point in time comparisons between Austin and itself; the change in delta between Austin and a particular city known for restricting housing; and the change in delta between Austin and national median rents. They all support the idea that increasing supply tends to decrease costs, which by a massive coincidence is what basic economic theory suggests.
Of course, people can come up with an ad hoc explanation for why Austin's prices happened to decrease against each of those data points. But is there a single principled way to present the data that suggests increasing supply in Austin did not decrease costs?
> But is there a single principled way to present the data that suggests increasing supply in Austin did not decrease costs?
Building more housing will make housing affordable. That’s not up for debate. The extent to which is what you need to look at. You can’t ignore the effects of net migration trends. My comment mostly wanted to address the parent which arbitrarily picked up data points of 2021 and right now and was comparing Austin and San Francisco. Because those specific points in time are tied to the migration of people between the two cities at a higher rate than usual.
The number of Tech people moving from SF to Austin and back is going to have negligible influence on the average rent in the entire city.
You mean the folk with highest purchasing power (2-3x median wages of the average person in the city) moving in and out of the city have negligible impact on the average rent in the entire city? I guess the 20% increase in rent in 2021 in Austin was just vibes.
Yeah this would be the interesting thing to try to normalize the data against somehow.
If you just compare it to other cities you can see that Austin did much better in prices.
Idk about rent, but even as of a year or two ago, Austin metro housing index was lower than its 2016 level. Rent following a similar trajectory wouldn't be super surprising to me.
Here's a chart that presents some context:
https://www.reddit.com/r/texas/comments/1grxqur/the_austin_t...
This appears to be a correction to an unsustainable market.
[flagged]
Nevermind the collapse of salaries flowing into the area which is destroying what the market demand is willing to pay for the existing stock? This crowd, of any, should be familiar with how many jobs flowed into that area and the promise of how many more it would be. Only for that to basically evaporate overnight.
Like, yes. At a base level, you need enough supply to keep prices down. But, the entire point of supply and demand is that it is two curves that intersect. And the demand curve, if pushed up, will also increase prices. Could you over supply such that you drive down the unit costs in a way that keeps prices down? Of course it is plausible. It is not typical market behavior, though. For that, you need excessive spending by someone.
You mean to tell me that increasing supply lowers price? Fascinating.
Unfortunately, there's a lot of people -- especially further left -- who fight this kind of reasoning. They insist that the housing market is different, and that just building more private housing won't help.
No amount of evidence will convince these people, because they already made up their mind ahead of time: their ideology says the market can't help, so the market can't help, period. Any evidence to the contrary is a plot by billionaires or something.
The populists on the right share a similar view, but mostly blame immigration.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary* depends upon his not understanding it!" - Upton Sinclair
*Nothing changes if you replace "salary" with "financial interests". Or "social interests". Or other interest near & dear.
Their core argument is that we could increase supply but choose not to, and that we should be maximizing supply (as an ethical and moral mandate, but that is not a tenant of capitalism really) because housing is an essential thing like food and water. FWIW we don't maximize food/water production either for various reasons, which would also drive food/water prices down.
Maximizing supply can mean other things than building like taxing unoccupied homes by large amounts making them unpalatable to own as a second (or higher) home, thus putting them back on the market. However these aren't all good because obviously our economy deals with more effects than just simple supply and demand, like maximizing the amount of loans given to people wanting housing regardless of the ability to repay is known to be a bad idea.
If you throttle the supply you can clearly control the price and the people you're talking about believe there is a concerted effort to control that supply. This can happen directly (choosing not to build as soon as land is available to build on) or indirectly (e.g. politics, mass media influencing people to vote to not increase supply).
What people generally hate is production of essentials not being maximized which would give us the actual lowest price, and maybe we as a society should be maximizing that supply to arrive at the lowest cost for a given house with given features.
And then the rebuttal to that is usually "tough shit lol" which is why people coming out with simple supply and demand replies are generally seen as derisive.
Some of what you're saying does happen, but what I said also happens: many leftists genuinely believe that increasing production via private companies is impossible or entirely unhelpful.
It's not just that they're focused on other things -- some of which I agree with, to be clear, as I'm a social Democrat -- they really believe that supply and demand won't work.
Food supply is most definitely maximized
> FWIW we don't maximize food production
We kinda do, through farm subsidies.
There's a lot of talking past each other on this issue. Sure there's probably clueless people out there, but a lot of left wing housing activists that are skeptical of free market housing liberalization understand very well economics and the benefits of housing supply, but are concerned about the time horizons involved and concrete near term impacts on low income residents.
It is of overall net benefit over the long term to raze a small three story walkup apartment and build something denser, overall increasing the amount of housing.
However, in the short term it's immediately quite (sometimes existentially) bad for affordability if existing affordable housing is destroyed and replaced by brand new (and thus inherently luxury) housing.
So accordingly we naturally see low income housing activists push back against some redevelopment and ask why development is not occurring in wealthy single family home areas where the amount of people impacted is less and class those that are not remarkably negatively impacted.
Personally I think the data shows that in general it is still really beneficial to build out as much housing as possible and avoid the negative impacts of a shortage, but I do think there are people validly pointing at a real problem of displacement.
Who would've thought?!
The solution to ALL cost of housing problems globally is this.
Everywhere you look, Australia, Canada, UK, EU this is just a massive issue for young professionals with long-term disastrous downstream political consequences, and yet, the solution is so simple but hardly ever implemented in these countries.
Just BUILD MORE HOUSING. Mass build everywhere. Vast amounts of land is available. Just build homes and apartments everywhere!
It's wild how the solution to housing is: stop the government from stopping housing from being built.
Why do people accept that supply/demand works in so many industries when the private market is allowed to flourish, but won't accept it for healthcare, education, etc?
A lot of our health care needs are notoriously inelastic, which is IMO the biggest reason free market dynamics are not a good choice.
Because for-profit healthcare and higher ed have shown poor outcomes empirically?
When? Because we don't use market solutions for those things now. Those are two of the most manipulated markets in the US. They also are two of the three industries whose prices increased by more than inflation, everything else has gotten cheaper (inflation adjusted) over the last several decades. Those things are related.
Ideology, mostly.
Sure, but it's not that easy. The swaths of new people need infrastructure and support: schools, hospitals, police, fire stations, roads, water, sewage, flood prevention, etc. That's a lot of money upfront. This is why most cities in the EU block many projects like these.
Also those people will saturate downtown making it lose its culture.
I'm always amazed at the American way of "just throw money at the problem".
Is it simply normal supply and demand? They had massive surge of prices that made construction more profitable so after a time lag, building boom happened, bringing prices back to the average long-term trend. If some place becomes 'affordable', its economy suffers because good people don't like living in places where housing is affordable - they move out.
Hey, here's a good way to improve 'housing affordability' locally: dumb down schools. People with cash will move out and prices will fall. Something suggests me it's not the solution really lol.
Affordability is relative. System always balances itself on the level that barely over 50% of people can afford housing (because it's a democracy). There's no fixing to it unless one abolishes either democracy (so no one cares what people want and developers have a free roll building as much as they want), or market economy (when the Party provides housing as it pleases).
Similar phenomenon in several cities: https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!vg94!,f_auto,q_auto:...
Has anyone also considered the possibility that Austin is just not that great? Like...those comparing it to the Bay area or a light weight NYC need their heads checked. Maybe people (like me) just realized it wasn't great and...left?
If you’re asking about a population decrease then, no, Austin has not had a declining population count for decades, and not recently either, although growth has slowed. So it’s not a case of decreased demand.
Another part of this - higher interest rates really put the brakes on home values. We own a rental property and the home value has more or less been locked in since 2022. In our otherwise hot metro area, nobody has raised their rental rates on similar properties in 4 years.
It's a win-win for our tenants. Prices seem to be stable and there's no rush for them to lock down a house RIGHT NOW.
It's sure not good for my bottom line as a landlord for them to keep adding homes and keeping rates up. But it sure seems like a no brainer for society at large.
This balanced perspective on what’s good for someone personally vs what’s good for society at large is what’s missing from the world.
Any reasonable landlord/real estate investor will have planned for various results - if your rental empire depends on "rents go up" and can't handle a flat market, let alone a downturn, you're going to be in for a bad time.
A stable market is great; as you can find good deals with some sort of certainty, and focus on where you can actually build value (rehab, etc).
If you are smart, you throttle up investments just before a boom starts and throttle them back just before a boom ends. At least you try to up your margins during good times so you can survive bad times. The trick is keeping your talent employed during the bad times so they are trained up and still in the industry for good times. Stability is obviously preferable.
That feels like the real takeaway: most housing shortages are caused by a pile of small constraints, so you need to remove a pile of small constraints
Same has been happening in Melbourne, Australia. The state government has basically steamrolled the boomers and allowed highrise construction next to existing train stations. Despite having huge population growth, rents are some of the most affordable in the country.
One of the things I like about the reporting in this Austin article, is they break down by building class.
In Melbourne I've never found a good source for this, only general averages; and my suspicions are that we just build shitboxes and claim the rent is lower on average, capturing something like shrinkflation rather than affordability.
I was apartment hunting in Melbourne in 2015 and I was appalled at the quality of most inner-city apartments. Tiny shoeboxes, no sunlight, paper thin walls.
At the time I didn't think they should have been allowed to be built. But looking back, they probably did keep a lid on rents. A bad roof over your head is better than no roof.
You should be able to identify properties and track them over time; and then even if you argue that "brand new condo" vs "same condo 10/20/30 years later" aren't directly comparable; well you can start to compare other metrics.
This is why I'm so sceptical about claims in Melbourne... If I look at properties I rented in the past, they are far less affordable.
But that's just the few I've looked through, not statistically significant.
Can it be also related to demand not catching up or even declining? If place is in high demand and prices go down shouldn't it cause even more people coming to it (compensating for a possible price change). (Note: not an expert on this, I'm just curious how it really works - besides obvious thing: more supply -> price goes down).
> Can it be also related to demand not catching up or even declining?
The Austin metro area's population has been monotonically increasing [1]. Increasing housing supply decreases prices. If you want to reduce housing costs, flood the system with housing.
[1] https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/cities/22926/aust...
I am trying to build new homes in Washington state. I have been navigating a gauntlet of a five step process where eleven departments have to give approvals at each step and it has taken five years. This is just to split a twenty acre parcel into two ten acre parcels.
this is completely anecdotal, but there's a pretty cool trend i notice where urban places with reasonable renter economies tend to fall into one of three categories
1) "b- to c-tier" cities that build build build build build (austin, slc, phoenix)
2) de-industrialized cities that already have the housing stock (chicago, baltimore, detroit, pittsburgh, philly, worcester)
3) struggling smallish towns and cities that leaned into building better downtowns (there's a billion of em)
the problem in sf is building is incredibly expensive, and projects that have been planned, land acquired, are simply sitting as empty lots because developers don’t have the money.
interest rates for construction loans, reduced funding, labor and material costs, all contribute to the amount of housing built.
there is a bond being debated in the ca senate now that will help by giving loans for construction.
https://calmatters.org/politics/2026/01/2026-housing-agenda/
Up here in Denver I see all kinds of new apartments complexes going up all over. I have not seen the rents coming done because of that yet.
I think Denver has a few other things going for it that simply make it a higher value housing market, namely: 1. Mild weather - dry weather with well defined seasons without 2. Natural recreation - some of the best year-around outdoor recreation in the country 3. More diverse economy - Austin is extremely tech heavy. Anecdotally most people saw dot-com boom hit Austin much harder than 08 crisis. Tech is bleeding right now. 4. Geography - building in Denver is constrained by Rocky mountains. The plains offer endless building but in Texas you can build any direction and topology is very flat.
I think the other thing not mentioned here is that Austin saw a huge influx of home buyers in 2020-2024 - most everyone I met during that time that moved from West Coast bought at the high and left within 2-3 years after realizing they couldn't handle the crumbling infrastructure and hot summers. Many of them have been holding onto these properties and trying to rent. This only put more pressure on another group - those who bought properties specifically for short-term rentals (e.g. Airbnb). Those who did stay are see massive headcount reductions in tech industry. Meanwhile there are many natives who would love to live closer but are stuck with properties purchased in '21-'24 in Round Rock, Georgetown, San Marcos, Taylor, etc.
So IMO this a perfect storm of not just building housing supply (which is great - the best thing the city has managed to do in the past 15 years), but also significant demand correction.
As someone born and raised in Austin and a homeowner within the city - I am ecstatic about decline in rents and home values. Austin became what it is in part because it was affordable.
We have no nearby mountains, hot summers, poor infrastructure, poor politics, a heavily polluted coastline --> there was no reason for it's prices to be as high as they were.
I have been to Austin only once for South by Southwest back in 95. As a musician I loved being in Austin, especially for that event. I do get the differences between there and Denver. I love it here. However it is getting hotter here too. It's 85 today and will be 87-88 Friday, and we are running out of water along with the rest of the Southwest. Who knows what's going to happen or where to go to if it gets real bad?
I would buy more complex arguments around housing price solutions if ALL housing price problems everywhere else hadn't been solved by building more housing
Supply glut aside... Quality of life down... Traffic up... Kind of makes sense rents are down. Density needs transit investment too
Or...maybe...Austin just isn't that great? Maybe (just maybe) a lot of people (myself included) woke up one day and was like "why are we doing this?" and moved somewhere better?
Austin is not what people pretend. Same with Denver or SLC.
There are no tier 2 cities. Its like countries. There are first world, and third world. And thats it.
Did it actually drove down rents, OR did it only reduce the rate of yearly increasement?
:-)
Certainly, that can't be true?
Increased supply lowered prices for the same levels of demand?
Seems unlikely.
This reads like some triumph but rent was up 100%+ from 2010, and it is merely back down 15%.
Even adjusting for inflation, and even if the measurement of inflation is decent, it would still need to go down by another 20%.
Wow it's almost like the law of supply and demand is in fact accurate. Who would have thought basic economic 101 would be proven out? It's almost like when you allow supply to increase to meet demand the price equilibrium can move down. Shocking.
I say this with a bit of righteous anger though because the moronic democrats in California want to virtue signal about housing and homelessness but they make it downright as difficult and expensive as possible to increase housing supplies. The democrats in California have done nothing but make our problems worse, even as there are states we can look to with proven examples to solve our problems. Nope... more housing lotteries and BMR units will be required instead of just making it easier to actually build..
I'm with you and feel your anger. So tired of California's useless virtue signaling about housing and homelessness while no progress is made for decades. California, stop messing around and start living up to your virtue signals! It's infuriating to live in California, hear all day about caring about poor people, then do nothing at all for the bottom line and in fact endeavor to make it harder and discriminate against poor people as much as possible.
And then they'll act so surprised when the populists without a plan show up and win the national elections.
Some of the problem in California is that the population of want-to-buyers is all focused on a small number of extremely geographically constrained areas.
Their answer is always "more density" but more density isn't going to solve it - the demand is not fixed and density will not alleviate it, so there is natural pushback on ruining the area and not actually solving the problem.
The real answer here is that the valley needs to extend further south, as in the 1990s plans for companies to start building campuses in Silver Creek or further, which would require the government to incentivize such moves.
Had the dotcom lasted another two years or so, IBM, Cisco, and many others would have done the capital investment in campuses further out, and the viable housing area would have increased dramatically, but it didn't work out that way.
Germany could learn a lesson or two here...
what they didn't mention is that supply didn't impact rents until the large remigration back out of Austin
> what they didn't mention is that supply didn't impact rents until the large remigration back out of Austin
This has been studied to death. But just like soybean farmers in Idaho voting for tariffs on China it seems a category of urban renter is more wedded to ideology than self interest.
The Austin metro area's population is up [1][2]. Austin's GDP is up [3]. Migration per se doesn't explain a phenomenon that is robust across cities, countries and centuries.
[1] https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/cities/22926/aust...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin,_Texas#Demographics
[3] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPALL48453
2-3% is a margin of error compared to 20-40+% y/o/y growth. That means the influx ceased, some left, some had babies. Meanwhile housing was built.
Of course rents will crash if everyone anticipates 20-40% growth and it’s suddenly 0 . Let’s see in a few years if the pricing trend continues downward or upward.
If it’s downward, yes we’ve solved the rent problem by “building”. If it’s upward, as it has been, it’s not just about supply .
> Let’s see in a few years if the pricing trend continues downward or upward
This was the argument of the tobacco companies in the 1980s. This experiment has been run many, many times and only had one outcome. Overwhelming housing markets with a supply influx absolutely works. It cuts against ideology, however, so you’ll always have folks who want to wait for more data while properties appreciate.
You may not have noticed that nothing factual was said here
show pop stats
I feel like there was something else at play.
For reference, I moved to Austin in 2018, my rent for my apartment was about 1200/month. In 2022 (the year I left), my rent jumped suddenly to 1600/month despite new apartments near me, and all of the apartments I looked into had similar jumps. And anecdotally speaking my coworkers all reported similar massive rent spikes.
It feels more like this is associated with the tech industry cooling significantly in Austin so they can't get away with pricing bumps. This isn't to say new housing doesn't help, but it certainly didn't prevent me from getting fucked on rent.
Relevant: I just listened to an interview with Max Buchholz, US Berkeley assistant professor and the lead author of a new working paper titled "Inequality, Not Regulation, Drives America's Housing Affordability Crisis."
He says that building housing does bring prices down, but not very much. In his paper they argue that income inequality is a big driver of making housing unaffordable. (Not billionaires, but more those making more than the median income vs the rest) Because (among other reasons) those with higher income have leeway to spend more on housing versus those at the lower end of the income scale who can’t spend more on housing even if they get a raise.
https://www.youtube.com/live/ai76174930Q?si=R-FYO86COepRADhE...
This is nonsense. In every material good, the buying power of nearly everyone has increased in real terms over time, regardless of inequality. It's only in housing, with constrained supply, that inequality can drive up prices; and even in that case, it doesn't actually change the housing supply- if prices are high, that just means a lot of people who want to live there! Inequality doesn't reduce the number of houses.
Building a little reduces prices a little. Building a lot reduces prices a lot. If the prices are very high, then it's very profitable to build, so unless stopped by regulation, you will get a lot of building. Even if building merely keeps the price from going up as density increases, the value provided by living in an area goes up from agglomeration effects as it grows.
Supply glut aside... Quality of life down... Traffic up... Kind of makes sense rents are down.
I mean… duh? Genuinely baffled at people struggling to understand this. When there’s more of a thing, it costs less. Which is good when that thing is essential, like housing.
Not sure the idea of housing being an asset which endlessly accrues value is good for anybody involved, long-term. Open to disagreement, though! I’m no economist.
I guess the confounding factor is that the population isn't fixed. Greater construction could result in population growth which cancels out the gains from greater supply. You'd have to build faster than population growth to lower prices. And generally developers aren't looking to do that.
Sure they are. What developer wouldn't rather rent out ten apartments for $2k/mo than two apartments for $4k/mo?
Depends what the situation is, if the rents are absurdly high where you can undercut them and still profit then of course they would rather build more. If they are getting close to cost price, developers won't build more to lower it beyond that. At that point if you want to lower prices more you'd have to look at lowering the cost of construction.
Developers usually want to buy land, build house/apartment, and sell house/apartment.
They want to flow as much as possible - so if there are unlimited building spots you get a smattering of various options being built as they all find there niche.
If the building lots are rare, then they all will be built into the most expensive possibility.
If you try to take any local action that might lower housing prices or even keep them steady, you will likely be stymied by a large contingent of people that deny that new housing could ever raise rents.
The idea that supply and demand don't apply to housing is quite popular:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27397156
And the very few academic articles that try to refute housing supply lowering prices get a lot of press:
https://hellgatenyc.com/take-that-ezra-klein/
Even when it's not peer-reviewed and contradicts a ton of more serious research attempts, a bid of research which rarely gets popular press coverage.
It's like climate denialism, there's huge demand for denialist positions and very little research to back it up, so the press does not reflect the research.
People are quick to point out that induced demand exists - especially people that aren't fond of change.
Very broadly speaking, people mis-estimate effect sizes in economics by orders of magnitude. Induced demand is just their foothold to claim an effect exists, before they go about claiming the effect size they want to see.
How would induced demand work for housing? I understand it for say transit use or car travel or like Facebook visits, but when there's twice as much housing do I... buy another home? Buying extra houses as "an investment" in a culture that is hell bent on depreciating my investment by building more housing is one of those "r/WallStBets" crazy plays, if I'm wrong I will lose my shirt and everybody will laugh at me.
Also, even if that were a problem, which seems dubious, you can regulate it. Massive tax hikes for second and subsequent homes are a thing in some places.
I love induced demand. I'm going to use it to get rich - buy up some abandoned town somewhere, and then pay to run a 100 lane superhighway to it; induced demand means the town will fill up instantly and be hugely valuable!
It doesn’t work unless there is currently repressed demand for living in that abandoned town because not enough housing or other factors.
No one is complaining about a housing shortage today in buffalo which used to have twice as much housing stock as it does today, because the demand simply isn’t there now.
Exactly - induced demand is just a misnomer/misunderstanding. "Pent-up demand" would be a much better way to explain it - but that would reveal that at some point the demand ceases; even SF has some limit - once all 12 billion people live there, demand will level off.
Good analogy. I've always considered induced demand a bit of a fantasy.
New businesses the sprout up that market themselves certainly induce a bit of demand, but more lanes and stoplights doesn't exactly motivate people to want to go somewhere.
> When there’s more of a thing, it costs less.
Yeah, and when we add lanes to roads, the average speeds increase and commutes get shorter. Right?
Also, if the government gives me $1 billion, then I'll be rich. But what happens if the government gives everyone $1 billion? Everyone will be rich, right?
... Your examples seem to undercut your point if I'm understanding what you're trying to say.
In your first example the "cost" in the form of traffic etc. was reduced so more people "buy" in the sense that they go on the road until you reach a new "cost" equilibrium. In practice that equilibrium is quite close to the original cost so it doesn't fix the issue traffic. But if that same number of people had driven before the high way expansion traffic would have been way worse; the cost would have been too high so they previously opted not to drive.
In your second example by increasing the supply of money the money ends up costing less; it becomes worthless due to inflation.
When there's more of a thing it cost less.
To be fair, building more housing can be like highway example. If there's tons of pent up demand of people looking to move somewhere increasing supply dramatically can fail to move the needle on cost because there's many marginal buyers who all have basically the same price. If you've got a million people who want to move somewhere and are all willing to pay up to 500k for a house the price of a house won't fall under 500k until you've built at least a million more homes.
> ... Your examples seem to undercut your point if I'm understanding what you're trying to say.
That perhaps you shouldn't assume that kindergarten-level theories always correctly describe complex markets?
> In your first example the "cost" in the form of traffic etc. was reduced so more people "buy" in the sense that they go on the road until you reach a new "cost" equilibrium.
So go on, do continue this line of thinking. You built more houses.... then what?
Feel free to refer to my explanation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47433743 - as usual, downvoted by people who can't face the truth.
Your previous comment is misleading and incorrect.
Even then, I’m curious as to what point you were trying to make with the building roads thing.
Isn’t it a good thing that more roads are built even if induced demand is observed? More people are able to use the roads.
Come on, think about it.
You got more people into the place. Now more employers move in, as they have access to a bigger pool of employees. What's next?
Put yourself into the shoes of a real estate developer.
Yeah that’s induced demand and it’s a good thing for the economy.
The rents are supposed to reduce only temporarily. But the goal is to not reduce is permanently. The goal is to increase land utility. Building houses helps with that cause.
> Yeah that’s induced demand and it’s a good thing for the economy.
No, it's not good. It leads to nothing but urban decay.
That's how you get Tokyo with a crazy price bubble, while beautiful traditional houses decay into dust just 3-4 hours away.
> The rents are supposed to reduce only temporarily.
Except that they don't even decrease. If your population is growing, so is your rent. And it doesn't matter how much you build (for large enough cities).
Again, this is simple observable truth.
> The goal is to increase land utility. Building houses helps with that cause.
Yeah. The goal is social engineering to force people into shoebox-sized apartments, to be ruled by their benevolent masters.
That's also why we're getting a global pushback against it.
> No, it's not good. It leads to nothing but urban decay.
This is subjective and loaded. I don't see any concrete point you are making.
>Except that they don't even decrease. If your population is growing, so is your rent. And it doesn't matter how much you build (for large enough cities).
They did temporarily in Austin - 19% after accounting for inflation.
Overall, making a city like NYC is preferred for any country. Even if the prices are really high, it reflects the economic activity of that city. Why would a house cost ~$800k if the person living there won't make multiples of it with their wages?
> This is subjective and loaded. I don't see any concrete point you are making.
Forced (by economy) in-migration into cities is a net negative for the country with stable or shrinking populations. It leads to objectively worse quality of life for people (less living area per person and more financial stress).
> Overall, making a city like NYC is preferred for any country.
Nope. Making a city like NYC is a recipe for disaster. Europe and the US are living through it right now. How do you think we got that kind of polarization?
When it's a zero-sum (since population is stable/declining) game, the losers are not going to take it lightly. They become an easy target for all kinds of populists.
> That's how you get Tokyo with a crazy price bubble
Are you really making an argument that rents in a place like Tokyo are not supported by real value creation? Are we supposed to all live in "beautiful, traditional" heritage houses? Those houses are often a luxury, and favored by the wealthy who can live with the resulting inconveniences. They're not a sustainable solution for the masses.
Austin is a good reminder that supply does matter — but also that it needs to be added at scale before people actually feel it.
Small incremental changes probably just get absorbed without visible impact on rents.
In other news: Water is wet. Still, it probably bears repeating. I'm sure some NIMBYs said more housing would drive up prices.
Thats cool. Now do LA. Sorry but I want beaches and housing options.
“Great, now let’s see California…” - Patrick Bateman
Water, still wet.
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
There are many mistakes here.
The population numbers you have reported are misleading because they use 5 year estimated numbers. The better estimate is 993,588.
The population actually grew from 2021.
Even if you were right, the rents fell down by more than 19% after accounting for inflation. I’m not sure what you are trying to say?
> The population numbers you have reported are misleading because they use 5 year estimated numbers.
I specifically chose consistent data series. While each one of them can't represent the true population, they absolutely do illustrate the trend. The number you're quoting is from the Census, which only happens at 10 year intervals.
If you have better population estimates for these years that use the same consistent methodology, I'm all ears.
> Even if you were right, the rents fell down by more than 19% after accounting for inflation. I’m not sure what you are trying to say?
In SF rents fell even more. Without significant new construction.
Why?
> I specifically chose consistent data series. While each one of them can't represent the true population, they absolutely do illustrate the trend. The number you're quoting is from the Census, which only happens at 10 year intervals.
False. You are comparing 5 year estimates with 1 year estimates so it’s not consistent.
With SF I agree that it went down because of population but I’m not sure how that explains 19% reduction in rents in Austin with higher population.
Sorry, misclicked on this one: 2024 (ACSDP5Y2024.DP05): 979539.
The 1Y series is indeed https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDP1Y2024.DP05?q=Austin,+TX at 993771. I believe this is a statistical outlier, and is not reflecting the true population.
So let's test my prediction, shall we? The 2025 data will be released in April. If my prediction holds, then the population figures for Austin will be nearly flat or falling.
I also made the same prediction for Seattle, its rents are now falling slightly. So its population will be decreasing.
> With SF I agree that it went down because of population but I’m not sure how that explains 19% reduction in rents in Austin with higher population.
As you see from my data, the consistent series up to 2023 indicated falling population. The 2024 data was the outlier.
I still don't see your point. The population increased in Austin while the rents decreased. Even if nearly flat, the rent fell down by ~19% in real terms.
How do you explain that?
First, even if we assume that the number is correct, it's a very slight increase over the 2019 levels. Just around 2% growth within 5 years.
Second, I made a prediction that this number was simply incorrect, and we'll see it going down this year.
how surprising, never would have seen that coming
Austin is not a success story. It is a treading water story, and an example of lying with statistics because most of where it's cheap to live in "Austin" literally wasn't Austin when these measurements start. They just literally redrew the lines in part to make this headline.
If you want a success story, look a Vienna. That's what actual community and housing looks like and its because of the exact opposite of what econ clowns on here believe, non-market housing.
This is democracy in action: give the people what they want (and need)!
Why are you downvoting me, I'm right
Anyone ever drive around Austin, its highways and its endless new construction of new superhighways, to the point that Google Maps is confused?
As annoying as NYC (and driving) are, there are downsides to unlimited housing and lack of zoning - as it turns out, the same states that do this sort of thing we all praise, are the same laissez-faire philosophies that oppose communal public transportation and walkable urban communities.
Interesting to see how building more housing in Austin actually lowered rents. The debate about rent control versus new construction is always thought-provoking.
You say progress, I say enshittification.
What this article says: *The median apartment rent in Austin has dropped X% over the past 5 years*
What this article does not say: *Apartments in Austin cost X% less to rent now than they did 5 years ago*
It's completely possible for the cost of the average apartment in a city to go down, while the cost of existing apartments increases. How does this happen? The enshittification of rentals. Units get smaller (apartments in Austin are shrinking), they get built near highways (air pollution), they lose amenities like parking, they pop up places where they previously weren't allowed (smaller ADUs, basement units, see article), they get subdivided (landlord throws up a wall and turns a large 1br into a cramped 2br).
If supply and demand were really working the way its heralds claim, then we'd see the price of existing units going down. This article offers no evidence that this is happening. I don't believe for a minute that it is.
Instead, it's the same story as always: your rents will keep going up. You can move somewhere cheaper and shittier if you want. The people who profit will congratulate themselves while decrying the thing they actually fear: rent control.
https://www.statesman.com/story/business/real-estate/2025/05...
No, plenty of indices use a "repeat-rent" methodology (comparing only prices changes across the same unit) to address the problem you describe.
They show Austin rents going down, eg Zillow's Observed Rent Index: https://www.zillow.com/research/data/
I feel like the economics around the Texas real estate markets are getting really twisted due to other factors.
The quality of construction in these new builds is generally very bad. If you compare a Texas home built in 2025 with one in 2015, I can guarantee you will find shocking differences once you pull back some of the drywall or have kids jumping around upstairs. I had a 2023 build for a year before I realized I had a hot potato situation on my hands and decided to bail.
The new builds used to command a premium, but in some communities the situation has completely inverted. Buyers are coming in and explicitly avoiding anything built in the new millennium. Information is flowing so much more freely around real estate and the unspoken bullshit scams prevalent within. We've now got home inspector influencers on TikTok showing first time homebuyers exactly what to look out for. We didn't have these kinds of information channels when I was shopping for my first home.
I'll admit ignorance here, but I've been skeptical of the claim that new construction drives rents down. What I actually see is: a luxury apartment building goes up, surveys the market, and sets its rents 30% higher for the privilege of living in a new building with a gym for dogs or ball pit or whatever. Then the older buildings say, "Well, we can raise our rents 20% and still be the best deal in town," and so on.
Maybe if you flood the market with 30% more housing units like Austin you get the Econ 101 effect. On the other hand, apartment owners realized intentional vacancy is a profitable strategy, which alone seems to defy that basic interpretation.
what you're neglecting to consider is what would have happened if someone moved to Austin (say a wealthy person from SF) and that expensive new apartment didn't exist.
The mechanism by which new construction drives down rents is that people that need a new apartment are in less competition with existing residents in older worse apartment buildings.
So the newcomer from SF moves into the expensive new apartment, which means that there's less competition for decades old apartments, which means that when one of those is vacated there is less price appreciation on that product.
If there is a scarcity of apartments what happens is that when a decades old apartment is vacant it is filled by a wealthy newcomer and the landlord increases the rent accordingly.
In my neighborhood in NYC, I've also observed that rents increased after luxury apartments were built here. In fact my landlord cited the increased median rent in the neighborhood as a reason to raise my rent.
My understanding of the situation is that luxury apartments do indeed gentrify neighborhoods (i.e. they increase the local rent and drive displacement of locals that can't keep up with those rent increases).
However, across the entire city, it slightly eases rent pressure by providing additional housing supply.
So, like you mentioned, if you get enough housing across many neighborhoods, you can drive down rents. Otherwise, that luxury complex in your neighborhood might only be helping ease rent pressure in other neighborhoods.
"In fact my landlord cited the increased median rent in the neighborhood as a reason to raise my rent."
Your landlord lied to you to get you to pay the increase. You had little choice because finding a cheaper apartment probably wasn't possible/desirable and you probably didn't want to argue with him in front of the rent board. Understandable but that doesn't mean your landlord's explanation has any validity.
You're saying that even though landlords may justify rent increases because of new constructions, if new constructions hadn't been built they would have used a different justification? And the rent increase would have increased just as much?
That's possible!
Maybe the rent increase is independent of that single new construction. Or it could be mixed depending on the type of housing. I looked into it a bit more[1] and it seems like lower-quality apartments near a new build go up in price but high-quality ones go down in price.
[1]: https://nlihc.org/resource/new-construction-has-mixed-short-...
> a luxury apartment building goes up, surveys the market, and sets its rents 30% higher for the privilege of living in a new building with a gym for dogs or ball pit or whatever. Then the older buildings say, "Well, we can raise our rents 20% and still be the best deal in town," and so on.
I think that might not be the right cause and effect relationship. The actual cause is increased demand. This creates both the increased pricing of existing stock and an incentive to build new stock.
> Then the older buildings say, "Well, we can raise our rents 20% and still be the best deal in town,"
They can only get away with that when there is a housing shortage.
> I've been skeptical of the claim that new construction drives rents down.
It can, but not in isolation.
It requires a couple additional variables such as population demand (rate of growth of Austin has reduced since the COVID boom [0]), existing stock (Texas had a building boom and bust in the 1980s [1] that decoupled it's housing market from the rest of the US), and a shift from buying to renting.
That said, the peers I have who work in professional real estate (not realators - as in actual MDs for REITs or multi-generational landlord families whose parents went to school with Governers and Mayors) are starting to shift away from real estate to equities because of headaches around succession planning and reduced margins.
What is ending up happening is megacap REITs like Equity Residential, Essex, Avalon, etc are buying out older groups, taking stakes in new developments, and shifting away from selling condos to perpetually leasing. At their size they can afford to have significant amounts of unleased units becuase they would have made up the cost via higher rent on leased units, tactically building high margins condos and SFHs in high appreciation geographies, or loss harvesting in order to subsidize commercial buildouts like data centers.
Naively saying only construction will reduce prices is false, and if the consolidation aspect is not solved (and sadly, it won't be) it would only lead to an even worse situation.
Additionally, these are hyperlocal problems and what may work for Austin may require significant retooling for Chicago.
[0] - https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2026/01/28/austin-be...
[1] - https://www.nytimes.com/1986/09/14/business/john-connally-s-...
Your scenario is simply describing a massive under-supply problem, and mis-attributing causality for price increases.
If the older buildings are able to raise prices 20% with no increase in vacancies after the new build, the new build not coming in would mean those older buildings rent would be bid up more than 20%.
The people moving in who could have afforded the 30% more expensive luxury units will just have to pick from the older units and outbid lower income people for spots in this low supply, growing city (under no other scenario could you crank up rent on aging stock 20% without losing to competing landlords).
> if you flood the market with 30% more housing units like Austin you get the Econ 101 effect
According to TFA, it seems so.
Which is great, because it's further evidence that we should do the same thing everywhere.
There were a ton of apartments built in lower-cost areas outside of the urban center as well - the Parmer area (near the new Apple campus), the Tech Ridge area near I-35, and out by the airport and Tesla factory as a few examples. It wasn't only high-end, lots of mid-level stuff was built too.
The laws of supply and demand don't apply to housing in the Bay Area.
We need affordable housing, not more housing for rich people, made by rich developers. Just because my house is worth $3M and I have $3M in stock options doesn't mean I'm rich. I'm working class, I had to come back from paternity leave to log-in to Slack on my laptop every damn day, and tell Claude how to write this damn software!
Did you sign the petition to block the apartment building down the street? It would RUIN our neighborhood!!
As an aside, I am not part of the problem!! I care about poor people!!! I am a good person!!!!
Oh you want proof? Look at my front lawn: "In this house we believe black lives matter, science is real, love is love..."
Proof point 2: look at my Tesla! "I bought this Tesla before I knew Elon was crazy!"
Plus I voted for Kamala. I'm GOOD. People in Kansas are DUMB and BAD.