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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
> 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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.
> [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.
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'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.
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…)
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
> 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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
> 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.
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 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.
> 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?
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".
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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”
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
>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.
> 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.
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.
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!
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.
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 $1,000,000) who want those houses than there are houses.
35% of Americans rent their homes. And they almost invariably rent from investors. Therefore if more than 35% of homes are owned by investors this drives down rent. If less than 35% are owned by investors rent goes up.
This logic assumes that 35% of Americans WANT to rent their home. Which seems odd to me, if only for financial reasons - why would you pay 1400$ for a 1 bedroom apartment when you could pay 700$ in a mortgage for that same apartment if you could have bought it?
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 $9. Assuming you really want a boat, would you buy or rent? Do my numbers reflect reality? Do they have a bearing on the choice you make?
?? How in the world is it splitting hairs to point out that those numbers don't make sense. It is directly relevant to the question of how many Americans want to rent. You don't need to be like this :(
> renting to be more expensive than a comparable mortgage.
that doesn't sound plausible. May be for a select few properties that are in some unique circumstance (e.g., the seller of the property would sell underpriced because they needed quick sale).
And often, in arguments like these, the rent is the rent, but the mortgage is purely the interest on the loan, and doesn't count the maintenance cost, and doesn't count the deposit required (which has a cost, ala the cost of capital). If you added up all these costs, it exceeds rent.
You do know that the posters on r/landlord are often selling services to landlords and thus have a financial incentive to make being a landlord seem attractive. Its a pretty safe assumption that reality isn't that rosy.
> why would you pay 1400$ 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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
> 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.
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.
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....
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.
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).
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.
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 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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.)
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
> 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.)
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?
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.
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.
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?
>>> 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.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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).
> 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.
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.
Interesting to see how building more housing in Austin actually lowered rents. The debate about rent control versus new construction is always thought-provoking.
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.
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
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.
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?
> 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 .
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..
Sigh. NO it didn't. One fact of life: new construction does NOT lead to lower housing prices. Sad, but true.
So what did? Likely COVID. The _only_ way to decrease the housing prices is to decrease the population. As proven by countless cities, including the world's most liveable Copenhagen.
So does my prediction hold for Austin? Let's see.
Austin TX population in 2019 (ACS estimate, data series ACSDP1Y2019.DP05): 979263.
2021 (ACSDP1Y2021.DP05): 944658
2023 (ACSDP1Y2023.DP05): 979700.
2024 (ACSDP5Y2024.DP05): 979539.
So yep, my prediction holds true. The housing prices in Austin were stagnant because its population decreased during COVID and barely recovered to pre-COVID levels.
Want another prediction? Seattle's home prices will fall down, because its population is now (likely) decreasing. Not because of a rush of new construction. We'll see updated population released stats in April.
Edit: I sent a letter to the editor of Pew. We'll see if they have a shred of honesty (doubt it).
Edit 2: honest researchers take care to control for other factors before jumping to conclusions. For example, they could have found a comparable city that also had falling rents but _no_ significant new construction.
And hey, I did that. According to https://vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/indicators/asking-rents the rental price in SF was $4060 in 2019, and it fell to the low level $3319 in 2024 before starting to climb in 2025. Can you guess what was happening with its population?
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.
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.
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.
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.
So yes, it really is "just build more housing." The problem is: why would you build more housing as prices fall?
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).
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.
Nowhere in the economic theory there is a proposition stating that prices should fall below affordable levels, given enough competition.
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.
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"
Literally an appeal to ignorance.
"What else could it be?"
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?
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.
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.
- 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)
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.
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.
I'm not sure what you're trying to imply here. You should spell it out explicitly.
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.
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.
US homebuilder gross margins have been declining since 2023.
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.
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.
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).
Government doesn't need to make a profit due to taxation.
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.
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.
They're just gonna pay builders a sum anyway so it's not like they need to shoulder the full upfront cost anyway.
But surely soviet style huge blocks of tiny t0 apartments all stuck together is a dream...
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
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.
It's not like homebuilders in Austin flee for North Carolina when the margins shift slightly.
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
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
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
Homebuilders make at least an order of magnitude more on a very expensive item.
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.
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%
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!"
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.
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.
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.
It would be better if you considered new actual living capacity in Tokyo rather than just new constructions.
Generally speaking, freer markets seem to lead to worse outcomes overall.
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…)
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
I guess I don’t see where we disagree?
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).
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
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.
Talk about praising with faint damns.
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.
The data is here: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AUST448BPPRIVSA.
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...
So which way is it now?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
> 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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"
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'.
Rarely in human history has a specific policy failed more spectacularly. Yet you still hear supposedly educated people advocate for it every year.
Broadly, our housing problems are bureaucratic in origin and I think bureaucracy is indeed an ideology.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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...
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
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.'
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')
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That isn't theoretical. I just described the SF Bay Area.
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.
>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 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Building enough housing that rents go down is the same thing as lowering crime so not much of an issue there.
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!
Homes for people. Not investors.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kind of an unhelpful tangent to the discussion, really.
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?
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.
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.
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? 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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
It’s not NYC or SF, but this suggests that those would be more affordable if they just built more housing.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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...
We certainly will not see zoning reform until the Boomers die.
This is beyond ridiculous and it’s totally unsustainable.
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.
And, of course, once the development is complete, and the value of their land goes up, so too does their rent....
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.
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.
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.
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....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
West Lake Hills perhaps (which is not technically Austin) - Austin Hills is not remotely prestigious.
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.
The old money (rich before tech) to the West of 280 in Woodside and Portola Valley.
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.
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.
> 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
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
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%
- 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.
"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.
Correct. That's why when there's more housing you're more likely to find what you need.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2025/03/america...
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.)
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.
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.)
That’s the story of the last 10 years among certain types that keep regurgitating obviously wrong concepts.
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'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.
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
Or in other words, is there any econometric evidence that building housing increased rents in Palms, or could we be confusing correlation with causation?
That's not science, it's dogmatism
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.
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.
Which is self interested. The paradox is renters being turned against their own interests by large landlords pitching anti-gentrification.
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.
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.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.
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.
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?
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.
and if anything you taxes will go down because they are now spread across more households.
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)
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.
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.
[0] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-trump-says-he-wa...
"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.
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.
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.
So there were a bunch of people who wanted to live there and now can.
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.
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.
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
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.
For the everyman banks not winning is catastrophic.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
that is why we build suburbs - they get anound this by being right next to a place with everything you want in a city
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.
See Starbase, Texas
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.
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.
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.)
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.
https://www.volts.wtf/p/is-the-brand-new-city-in-california
The existing smaller cities just slowly wither.
Existing homeowners of the capitals have little interest in real estate prices dramatically dropping - would you?
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, 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.
In a negative way?
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.
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.
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.
It's a minority of people who are ok never capitalizing on their home value.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
We kinda do, through farm subsidies.
> "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.
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%.
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.
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?
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.
:-)
Increased supply lowered prices for the same levels of demand?
Seems unlikely.
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.
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).
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...
They show Austin rents going down, eg Zillow's Observed Rent Index: https://www.zillow.com/research/data/
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...
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.
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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
According to TFA, it seems so.
Which is great, because it's further evidence that we should do the same thing everywhere.
They can only get away with that when there is a housing shortage.
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.
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).
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-...
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...
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.
Even adjusting for inflation, and even if the measurement of inflation is decent, it would still need to go down by another 20%.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Small incremental changes probably just get absorbed without visible impact on rents.
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
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 .
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..
So what did? Likely COVID. The _only_ way to decrease the housing prices is to decrease the population. As proven by countless cities, including the world's most liveable Copenhagen.
So does my prediction hold for Austin? Let's see.
Austin TX population in 2019 (ACS estimate, data series ACSDP1Y2019.DP05): 979263.
2021 (ACSDP1Y2021.DP05): 944658
2023 (ACSDP1Y2023.DP05): 979700.
2024 (ACSDP5Y2024.DP05): 979539.
So yep, my prediction holds true. The housing prices in Austin were stagnant because its population decreased during COVID and barely recovered to pre-COVID levels.
Want another prediction? Seattle's home prices will fall down, because its population is now (likely) decreasing. Not because of a rush of new construction. We'll see updated population released stats in April.
Edit: I sent a letter to the editor of Pew. We'll see if they have a shred of honesty (doubt it).
Edit 2: honest researchers take care to control for other factors before jumping to conclusions. For example, they could have found a comparable city that also had falling rents but _no_ significant new construction.
And hey, I did that. According to https://vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/indicators/asking-rents the rental price in SF was $4060 in 2019, and it fell to the low level $3319 in 2024 before starting to climb in 2025. Can you guess what was happening with its population?
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.
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.
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.