Support NeoGAF

[WedgeX]

Cities do need to increase housing supply and density, but jumping in bed with luxury developers is not the answer.

Need to include actual affordable housing (not just the "affordable" housing that these big cities push for) and not displace the current residents because your zeal for housing supply led you to jump in bed with a developer that wants to build a 100-unit building and charge $4K a month for each.

The 40/60 deals in DC through the low income tax credit have sadly managed to push out tons of low income folk to benefit middle class folk to build luxury housing that will remain luxury housing once those deals expire in 10-15 years. Its going to be very interesting to see how the LIHTC ends up shaping cities in a decade or so.

 

[Infinite]

I don't think you understand how supply and demand works?

Or as Obama would have said, more supply is "bending the cost curve."

more supply wouldn't guarantee affordable housing.

 

[Keri]

Sounds like a good idea to me. More housing, even "luxury" housing, in high enough quantities has to drive down prices, no?

 

[ezrarh]

Correct.

If the average human lifespan was like a week.

The best time to build affordable housing was 10 years ago. Today's ugly high rise luxury apartments are tomorrow's "attainable" housing. Unfortunately, new construction is only affordable to the poor if it's subsidized.

 

[Gallbaro]

You're picking a weird hill to die on. The poster you replied to wasn't arguing against the basic principle of supply and demand applying to the housing market, nor is anyone else.

He just highlighted that in the particular market he is in there is a significant tax policy that is heavily, if not totally cancelling out the price easing that comes with increasing supply.

I am not choosing to die on this hill, maybe I am arguing past them, and it is a distortion. But if it is allowing for a marginal increase in rental stock to be created, then t is dropping prices for renters.

Home ownership is drastically overrated anyway.

 

[Cosmo Clock 21]

Sounds like a good idea to me. More housing, even "luxury" housing, in high enough quantities has to drive down prices, no?

What's going to happen, like it frequently does in my city, is that developers fail to lease out luxury housing, so instead they have to resort to section 8-ing portions of the building

 

[FUME5]

Sounds like a good idea to me. More housing, even "luxury" housing, in high enough quantities has to drive down prices, no?

Again, from an Australian perspective, not necessarily.

Also, we have regulatory roadblocks in the way of property developers for a reason, the long term interests of a community are rarely the same as their interests.

I am not choosing to die on this hill, maybe I am arguing past them, and it is a distortion. But if it is allowing for a marginal increase in rental stock to be created, then t is dropping prices for renters.

Home ownership is drastically overrated anyway.

Nah.

 

[cdyhybrid]

The best time to build affordable housing was 10 years ago. Today's ugly high rise luxury apartments are tomorrow's "attainable" housing. Unfortunately, new construction is only affordable to the poor if it's subsidized.

I mean, if we're only looking for the best solution long term with zero regard for the present then we should just bulldoze these cities and all their suburbs, incinerate the zoning laws, and rebuild it all at once from scratch.

That's obviously not feasible, so we need to find a way to incrementally get there that isn't "Sorry poor people, this housing will be somewhat affordable 20 years after you're dead and buried if we haven't caused nuclear winter by then".

 

[TemplaerDude]

Could use some of these in Vancouver.

I'm so sick and tired of hearing about another project or development being "drastically downsized" or just disappeared entirely because of a bunch of "fuck you, got mine" single family dwelling fucks bitching and moaning to city council. Station after station on the skytain just passes by zones and zones and zones of land that needs to be densified.

 

[danm999]

I am not choosing to die on this hill, maybe I am arguing past them, and it is a distortion. But if it is allowing for a marginal increase in rental stock to be created, then t is dropping prices for renters.

Home ownership is drastically overrated anyway.

Actually in Australia it's a great way to make fuck tons of money and pay a much lower effective tax rate than pretty much any other source of income, which is the problem.