• Posts
  • RSS
  • ◂◂RSS
  • Contact

  • Affordable Housing

    May 6th, 2014
    housing, money  [html]
    You can read lots of articles about the crisis of housing affordability in desirable cities. There's a huge debate about what to do, but it looks to me like it comes down to one question: what happens if you let developers build more housing?

    Everyone pretty much agrees that permits to build additional housing result in building high-end housing. There are far fewer units of every type desired than available so there is plenty of demand for luxury units, and those give the most profit per square foot, so that's what developers are going to want to build if given the chance. The question is, what happens to the rest of the market?

    Here opinions diverge sharply. One view is that building luxury units does nothing to help the poor or middle class because they can't afford to live in them, and may even give higher rents for other buildings because they're now next to fancy luxury towers. The other view is that the rich people moving into the luxury units are moving out of somewhere else, opening those units up for other people. This gives you "filtering," a process of reverse gentrification where apartments that were occupied by rich people are now occupied by somewhat less rich people, and on down the chain, slightly lowering rents for everyone along the way.

    If you have the former view, you might require developers to build affordable housing, some number of units set aside at below market rate. Or perhaps you mandate smaller units with fewer amenities, decreasing their market price that way, and making room for more people on a given amount of land. Or you protest new housing developments, because they're catering to rich people instead of solving the real problem. But if you have the latter view then these restrictions are actively harmful: you want developers free to build as much housing as they think is profitable, and rules like "30% affordable" bring down the threshold of profitability enough that many fewer units will get built. You want to get out of the way of developers, find places our current permiting process is overly restrictive, and just get lots of new housing units built quickly.

    Can we look at what does happen to the rest of the market when new high-end units are built? It's a tricky problem, because what we care about isn't "did rents go down after building more?" but "did building more give us lower rents than we would have had otherwise?". There's lots of theorizing (Aaron 1973, Smith-Heimer 1990) and some analysis of rents by building age (Rosenthal 2013), but what else can we do to answer this question?

    (The filtering idea makes sense to me, but it's a complicated economic argument which could easily be missing something important about how the market actually works.)

    Comment via: google plus, facebook

    Recent posts on blogs I like:

    Who Should Bear the Risk in Infrastructure Projects?

    The answer to the question is the public sector, always. It’s okay to have private-sector involvement in construction, but the risk must be borne by the public sector, or else the private sector will just want more money to compensate for the extra risk. …

    via Pedestrian Observations November 30, 2020

    Fireside Friday, November 27, 2020

    Hey folks! Fireside this week. A bit of a change-up in terms of the coming attractions. I had planned to start “Textiles, How Did They Make It?” next, but I want to do a bit more reading on some of the initial stages of textile production (that is, the pr…

    via A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry November 27, 2020

    Thoughts you mightn't have thunk about remote meetings

    Welcome to this week's edition of "building a startup in 2020," in which all your meetings are suddenly remote, and you probably weren't prepared for it. I know I wasn't. We started a "fully remote" company back in 2019, but …

    via apenwarr November 23, 2020

    more     (via openring)


  • Posts
  • RSS
  • ◂◂RSS
  • Contact