• Nurgle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This is kinda like saying we need more farms to solve hunger.

    The cost of housing is very detached from supply. For rentals, companies bought up housing and just jacked up the price, because renters are a semi captive client base.

    New construction sometimes doesn’t even help, when developers knocks down an old affordable 12 unit apartment building and build a luxury 36 unit building, you’ve created -12 units of affordable housing.

    Even for home buyers, they’re facing a major up hill battle going against existing home owners who have access to the capital of their current homes, and even worse corporate home buyers.

    This isn’t to say supply isn’t an issue and we can ignore it, but we need to stop housing from just being an investment vehicle. Otherwise we’re just going to get garbage housing at prices no one can afford.

    • outstanding_bond@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      New construction sometimes doesn’t even help, when developers knocks down an old affordable 12 unit apartment building and build a luxury 36 unit building, you’ve created -12 units of affordable housing.

      The argument I hear against this is that the 36 people who move into the luxury apartments moved from somewhere, and so 36 other apartments become available. The reduced demand for the vacated apartments then drives their prices down.

      Of course, housing as a market is super distorted for a bunch of reasons so this effect is muddled. But I think it would be a net negative to fully disregard supply and demand in a market-based economy and preserve 12 affordable units in favor of 36 luxury ones.

      Largely agree with all your other points though.

      • Nurgle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        I get that argument and I think there’s some merit to it since like you said this whole thing is muddled. But the counter point is often those vacated units are in another town or city. So in the way overly simplified scenario, if 36 “programmers” move to the city, the vacated units through out the country don’t help the “bus drivers” who are tied to the area.

        Again we largely agree, I just wanted to illustrate even the simple assumptions like building more is good isn’t always that straight forward in this fucked up system.

      • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The obvious and immediate flaw with the 36 people moving into luxury apartments is, that’s not usually how luxury apartments work. Particularly in certain markets, it’s more and more common for luxury housing to be temporary homes, vacation homes that are turned into investments the rest of the year, e.g. air BNB. So a lot of the time, you get 36 regular homes destroyed, for 12 luxury apartments that get bought up by either people or companies that either then rent them out or keep them empty most of the year, with no increase in available housing.

      • crispy_kilt@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Rich people don’t really move into these luxury apartment. They buy it as an investment, use it as a holiday home, etc.