Mixed-use developments may actually reduce housing affordability(phys.org)
phys.org
Mixed-use developments may actually reduce housing affordability
https://phys.org/news/2018-02-mixed-use-housing-social-diversity.html
28 comments
Or everything will increase in value because of less supply than demand.
Isn't this exactly what you would expect from something pleasant and rare? If you just want to make an area more affordable, you should make it less pleasant.
The answer is to do this more, until it's not special, and during the process subsidize. In fact, if mixed-use areas are inherently more livable, build more public housing projects around a mixed-use format.
> The study of Toronto neighbourhoods found that the increased cost, which was further heightened by the retraction of government support for affordable housing in mixed-use areas[...]
The answer is to do this more, until it's not special, and during the process subsidize. In fact, if mixed-use areas are inherently more livable, build more public housing projects around a mixed-use format.
> The study of Toronto neighbourhoods found that the increased cost, which was further heightened by the retraction of government support for affordable housing in mixed-use areas[...]
> Isn't this exactly what you would expect from something pleasant and rare? If you just want to make an area more affordable, you should make it less pleasant.
I was a teenager in 1992 in a part of Chicago getting gentrified, and I recall socialist activists literally telling kids not to pick up litter for this reason.
They had a point...
I was a teenager in 1992 in a part of Chicago getting gentrified, and I recall socialist activists literally telling kids not to pick up litter for this reason.
They had a point...
This makes sense to me. The luxury apartments of yesterday became the affordable apartments of today.
If we want more affordable living spaces, we need to build build build.
If we want more affordable living spaces, we need to build build build.
The luxury apartments of yesterday became the affordable apartments of today.
Most affordable housing activists either don't understand or outright disbelieve that such filtering is possible. They're also somewhat impatient, so they want to see brand new yet affordable housing get built.
Unfortunately, because urban housing was uncool for decades virtually all urban housing tends to be either very old and run-down, recently remodeled and expensive, or recently built and expensive. There are no decent-yet-affordable 20-30 year old downtown apartments/condos.
Most affordable housing activists either don't understand or outright disbelieve that such filtering is possible. They're also somewhat impatient, so they want to see brand new yet affordable housing get built.
Unfortunately, because urban housing was uncool for decades virtually all urban housing tends to be either very old and run-down, recently remodeled and expensive, or recently built and expensive. There are no decent-yet-affordable 20-30 year old downtown apartments/condos.
It's possible, but it depends on the city. Yesterday's luxury apartments become today's affordable apartments if yesterday's luxury apartment tenants move into today's new luxury apartments, leaving their old luxury apartments vacant with upper-class buyers to replace them.
But in some cities, like New York and San Francisco, many of the new luxury apartments are being bought up by foreign investors who keep the apartment empty, or being bought up by rich outsiders who are moving into the city for the first time. So the increase in housing supply at the upper end of the market is only inducing additional demand and keeping prices high, instead of working against existing demand and either lowering prices or improving value (i.e. sticky prices which stay high, but buyers can now get a nicer apartment for the same cost).
Such "filtering" is definitely possible, but you'd have to find out a way to restrict immigration and market speculation to make it a reality.
But in some cities, like New York and San Francisco, many of the new luxury apartments are being bought up by foreign investors who keep the apartment empty, or being bought up by rich outsiders who are moving into the city for the first time. So the increase in housing supply at the upper end of the market is only inducing additional demand and keeping prices high, instead of working against existing demand and either lowering prices or improving value (i.e. sticky prices which stay high, but buyers can now get a nicer apartment for the same cost).
Such "filtering" is definitely possible, but you'd have to find out a way to restrict immigration and market speculation to make it a reality.
>So the increase in housing supply at the upper end of the market is only inducing additional demand
People move to New York and San Francisco because they get jobs there, not because apartments are built.
People move to New York and San Francisco because they get jobs there, not because apartments are built.
I guess you could call people living in unsafe substandard housing, paying upwards of 60% of their income on rent, and homeless... "impatient" for this to change. If only they knew it was good for _society_ to be more "patient" about their substandard housing.
It’s “impatient” to respond to a structural problem decades in the making and now reaching crisis by rejecting all attempts to make structural changes that might chip away at the problem in the upcoming years, and instead demand a limited fix that doesn’t treat any of the underlying causes and indeed exacerbates the crisis for the vast majority of people in the unfortunate situation while making one little corner unsustainably better for a small handful of people effectively chosen at random.
Increasing funds for public housing might accelerate a solution. Stonewalling market-rate development doesn’t make anyone better off (except existing owners).
Since we find affordable housing through (effective) taxes on market rate construction, blocking it yields lower total affordable housing production.
Since we find affordable housing through (effective) taxes on market rate construction, blocking it yields lower total affordable housing production.
Anecdotally the Geneva Towers[1] which have since been razed, began as luxury apartments for doctors and lawyers and eventually its life took it through being section 8 housing. They were torn down due to aging infrastructure.
[1]https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Geneva-Towers-To-Tumble-...
[1]https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Geneva-Towers-To-Tumble-...
The fantasy is that low income people without cars will be attracted to mixed use developments where all their needs are in one place. But middle and upper income people want that too, and that drives prices up. We own a condo in the Philippines with retail downstairs and a mall next door and prices have tripled in the 6 years since we bought. In traffic congested Manila mixed use is not just a luxury, it's a necessity.
It's a myth that some particular kind of development will increase affordability.
It's plainly obvious that an increase in the supply of available housing increases affordability of housing and a decrease similarly decreases it. And similarly with demand.
Not everything has it's price determined by the blunt cudgel of supply and demand but things that are needed to live clearly do.
It's plainly obvious that an increase in the supply of available housing increases affordability of housing and a decrease similarly decreases it. And similarly with demand.
Not everything has it's price determined by the blunt cudgel of supply and demand but things that are needed to live clearly do.
That's not obvious. NYC has a lot more available housing than somewhere upstate and is a lot less affordable.
More housing means more people, but prices might even go up.
More housing means more people, but prices might even go up.
More supply might lower prices, or it might lead to "induced demand" that eventually makes prices creep back up... Maybe even higher than before. So you're both right. The deciding factor which way it's gonna go is basically "location, location, location."
And where is that hypothetical "induced demand" coming from? Some other city that now has more affordable housing due to the people leaving town.
Either way, when you legalize housing and build more houses, you end up with more houses. That makes getting a house easier, for someone, somewhere.
Either way, when you legalize housing and build more houses, you end up with more houses. That makes getting a house easier, for someone, somewhere.
>a lot more available housing
The amount of liquidity has little to do with the overall supply-demand balance. There is plenty of AMZN stock available for purchase; doesn't make it cheap.
The amount of liquidity has little to do with the overall supply-demand balance. There is plenty of AMZN stock available for purchase; doesn't make it cheap.
Making a neighborhood nicer decreases affordability. Making a neighborhood crappier increases affordability. That's capitalism.
It's called basic supply and demand.
I refuse to think the only way that humans can live successfully is with large portions of the population living in crappy neighborhoods because they don't have enough money to do otherwise, or that this even counts as "successfully".
The only way to increase the aggregate experienced neighborhood quality is to make more good neighborhoods, probably where crappy ones currently stand.
Many find this unpalatable, as it extends access from the upper middle class and then down instead of from the homeless and then up. Favored alternatives (rent control, affordability requirements) don’t meaningfully increase access at all, but merely redistribute it from highest bidders to lottery/waiting list winners.
Many find this unpalatable, as it extends access from the upper middle class and then down instead of from the homeless and then up. Favored alternatives (rent control, affordability requirements) don’t meaningfully increase access at all, but merely redistribute it from highest bidders to lottery/waiting list winners.
I totally agree with you! But solutions don't come easily if the cause isn't understood.
Isn't mixed use the norm for Asia? Even (or especially) the poor will live near shops where they can buy things.
Feels like clickbait and a statement of the obvious - of course well thought out and walkable developments will attract a premium when compared to less walkable and useful developments. If we want people to not be priced out, we need to build enough to meet the demand and redevelop existing stock to match the current trends.
And you know what, we’ll still be rebuilding neighborhoods to match the then current trends 100 years from now. That’s the entire point - if the city doesn’t adapt to what people need/want overtime, areas that reflect those preferences will become unaffordable, whereas areas that do not reflect those preferences will decrease in value.