This Experiment Undid Our Cities. How Do We Fix It?

[numbered]

This thread is probably exhausted, but for the record, there are *many* studies showing that building more housing reduces rents. Microecon studies show price reductions measured in feet away from new projects.

That said, many leftists really want a focus on affordable housing, and the latest pitch is to go back to public housing projects. This is not a clear benefit, but that is another thread.

Finally, the best case for building is the Tokyo region. They have super dense housing, and 25m people. But they allow building anywhere so rents are cheap.

According to the same source, while the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment in outer San Francisco is 2,579 USD, it's only 684 USD in Tokyo. These numbers make accommodation in San Francisco 64% more expensive than in Tokyo in the city center and a whopping 73% more expensive outside the city center.Jun 28, 2023

I won't defend the lifestyle choices. That is the issue for folks. But mrbigstuff had it right:

and you know what else? the land that was a quaint village, with nice wood-frame and masonry Colonial and Federal style buildings from the 18th century. mostly gone. does anyone regret and pine for those days? no, of course not, because they were not alive during that period. it's all conditioning and it's not unnatural, but it is unrealistic. and before that quaint "settler" village, it was farmland. and before that, it probably belonged to some native peoples. how far back shall we go to. preserve the "character" of a community?

[kj]

I think the key is that there has to be more housing available than there is demand before prices will go down. Developers, investors, etc. aren't going to build that much, and why would they? They are going to build more, but not enough to meet demand. I've got 20yrs. left on this earth, maybe more, and I'm not going sacrifice what I have and enjoy because someone stands to make a buck.

50% of rentals are owned by companies with investors, which means people's rent is going into investors' pockets in the form of dividends, etc. How big a dividend is "enough"? No big is enough. That's why most of the homeless in California are people who used to have a home in the area they currently inhabit. They were priced out to put money in the pockets of investors. Supply and demand aren't going to fix this.

[vision63]

kj wrote:
I think the key is that there has to be more housing available than there is demand before prices will go down. Developers, investors, etc. aren't going to build that much, and why would they? They are going to build more, but not enough to meet demand. I've got 20yrs. left on this earth, maybe more, and I'm not going sacrifice what I have and enjoy because someone stands to make a buck.

50% of rentals are owned by companies with investors, which means people's rent is going into investors' pockets in the form of dividends, etc. How big a dividend is "enough"? No big is enough. That's why most of the homeless in California are people who used to have a home in the area they currently inhabit. They were priced out to put money in the pockets of investors. Supply and demand aren't going to fix this.

When everybody is trying to fit in the same space, somebody is going to be ass out. YIMBY goal is to increase density. NOT to accommodate people who become homeless as a result of the lack of available housing. But to cram "more" of who "they are" into desirable communities.

[kj]

vision63 wrote:
[quote=kj]
I think the key is that there has to be more housing available than there is demand before prices will go down. Developers, investors, etc. aren't going to build that much, and why would they? They are going to build more, but not enough to meet demand. I've got 20yrs. left on this earth, maybe more, and I'm not going sacrifice what I have and enjoy because someone stands to make a buck.

50% of rentals are owned by companies with investors, which means people's rent is going into investors' pockets in the form of dividends, etc. How big a dividend is "enough"? No big is enough. That's why most of the homeless in California are people who used to have a home in the area they currently inhabit. They were priced out to put money in the pockets of investors. Supply and demand aren't going to fix this.

When everybody is trying to fit in the same space, somebody is going to be ass out. YIMBY goal is to increase density. NOT to accommodate people who become homeless as a result of the lack of available housing. But to cram "more" of who "they are" into desirable communities.
Agreed.