Thinking like that is rather basic. Displacement isn’t just physical. It changes the socioeconomics of those neighborhoods. Basically pricing the residents out. New York has whole buildings that are empty. The housing crisis is similar to Gaza’s “food crisis” fabricated for money
housing comes in many forms. If we build just one sort of building, yes, they will remain empty because the people who need that specific type of living have their living situation fulfilled. If however we build VARIED type of housing, no holds barred, those needs will be fulfilled across the board
Yeah. Gentrification is partly due to lack of new housing supply, sure, but it's also - perhaps even more acutely - what happens when *only the most expensive & profitable types of housing* gets built. Since the market will never prioritize the needs of those who get displaced, you need the state.
Agreed! It seems the only development (housing, business, policy, transport, health, etc) happening is benefiting a specific group of people...
Yup. We have “affordable housing” that’s a joke. If you make 75-100k you’re good, and in a great spot close to actual transportation; for others the outskirts is where they have to go. There are people in shelters with actual jobs not because there’s no room, but because they can’t afford the rent.
Thats because of local zoning laws. Its often illegal to build a variety of building types. If I destroyed my house and built a 3 floor apartment complex in its place, I would go to jail.
They got rid of a ton of zoning regulations in London which subsequently resulted in a steady stream of new apartment buildings; would you like to take a guess as to how prices are doing there?
no idea without actually knowing how the zoning changed and how much is actually being built. Doing a quick search says they are still under building www.bbc.com/news/article...
new housing is always going to be more expensive, because it is ✨ new ✨. similarly, if we outlaw the production of new cars, then eventually your old '84 Datsun hatchback will cost $100k.
You're right, there has never been purpose-built low-income housing. We're all just living in luxury condos from yesteryear that have trickled down to us thanks to the benevolent market.
in a properly functioning housing market, older housing stock is absolutely less expensive, because old stuff is worn out/out of date. It's only in NIMBY paradises like the US that crumbling old housing gets acquired and renovated by the rich.
That’s closer to the truth than your take
My take that gentrification is just as inevitable when only high-end housing gets built in historically lower-income areas as when none gets built at all?
Yeah that’s false, or at least tautological because even crappy housing will be expensive when demand exceeds supply and then called “luxury” because it’s expensive
We're not talking about building to meet demand (which surely will require new housing to be made available to *all* income levels) we're talking about what happens to low-income neighborhoods when the only housing that gets introduced to the area is completely unattainable to its current residents.
NYC's vacancy rate is 1.4%, the equivalent of a room sitting empty for a single month after 5 years of continuous habitation, and extremely low both historically and nationwide. Empty buildings are not to blame for the housing shortage.
no, there are many good ways to do this —build a lot and create new units for current residents— and some people are doing it. But it takes government funding and involvement, and you also can’t have a fascist going after DEI in office.
We had a “housing crisis” agent orange. Our problems began when NY elected a rich white guy who wanted to make NY the city of millionaires. Units for the residents sounds nice. They said something similar when legalizing weed. Of course when the tenants have already changed over, who is it helping?
I can't remember exactly where each of these projects has been built --but it's already been done in some places. Really nice housing units in places that are for low income people that live in those places. Either low rent or affordable for purchase. It could be scaled up quite a bit.
See that’s the thing. The scale. 10 luxury apartments to 2 of those isn’t a very smart scale. All of a sudden we’re now planning to look into basements (like people aren’t already doing that) and smaller units. Hello cubicle apartments
But this is not mixed use —which is also better than what we have in most places. Mixed use not what these developments are. They are 100% community-based places that affordable for low income people. These are extremely feasible to build, if you have capital. The challenge is to raise the capital.
Those NY special prices will getcha. Saw the bare bones of a place running for 700k alone a few years back. It’s not a wonder that people are actually praying for a housing crash… Not me though, the law of unintended consequences. If that happens, it’ll come with more headaches as well
And yet the science doesn't support your opinion at all. When there's enough construction, long term neighborhood residents get priced out at a lower rate, even as neighborhood amenities improve. A healthy vacancy rate for a housing market is about 8%, to ensure adequate liquidity. What's NYC's?
The (few) empty buildings in NYC are the result of regulatory boondoggles, not gentrification.
The amount of empty buildings skyrocketed due to displacement. Nothing is any one thing. Like Covid it had its own ripple effects, in various ways. Multifamily homes being changed to single, housing, rental, and food prices increasing. Let’s not act dumb, it’s a domino effect.
Sure, there are always edge cases and the world is complex, but 1-2 percent vacancy doesn't represent a large issue with vacancy, even if a few specific buildings happen to be empty for any reason. Those buildings filling up wouldn't come close to making a dent in the problem.
How many buildings are empty and what is your evidence for that?
I, too, would love to hear some concrete answers to your two questions. I confess I find it very unlikely that I will, however.
That is not how anything works. Read an Econ 101 book
NYC's vacancy rate is nearly 1%, disastrously low. While you're correct in the abstract, when a housing crisis is that acute, any solution other than building more, quickly, is not materially changing the situation.
Are you conflating “not currently occupied by its wealthy owner who lives in another city” with “not leased/owned”? Though related, they are 2 diff problems
Given the past history of NIMBYs making this claim about “entire buildings” being empty, it’s likely about new construction that’s so new it hasn’t even gone on the market yet, maybe hasn’t even been certified for human habitation
Per an investigative report by The City (the publication), as of early 2024, there were 26K empty apartments in NYC. If all of those were to come onto the market, yes, it would make a big difference in the immediate term as the vacancy rate would spike. But it’s not the long term solution. /1
Within a relatively short amount of time, the excess would be absorbed. And absent enough new builds, we would still settle into a baseline vacancy rate that would be far below 5% - which is the figure that denotes a housing emergency. No, those apartments shouldn’t be empty. But /2
Releasing those alone onto the market is a drop in the bucket in terms of the need and solving the problem. Here’s The City article for reference: www.thecity.nyc/2024/02/14/r...
A drop in the bucket is better than nothing right now. The current path we’re on isn’t very sustainable. Our infrastructure needs a serious conscious update. That’s from housing to transportation.
Definitely agree that having those apartments is a FAR better situation than not having them. I was just trying to make clear that we need more than that done. Some folks - not necessarily you, of course - think it’s THE reason for the housing shortage. But it’s one of multiple.
You’re right. I understand most of these issues aren’t one thing. It’s a mix of problems that roll together to create these issues. I merely picked one facet.
No it doesn't. If the people don't have to leave, you made add new consumers to a neighborhood but the existing consumers keep living their lives.
Really? I literally watched a neighbor in just a few years for 1brs alone go from around $1200 to $1800(average) add that to changes made that had already increased prices because of the new residents, plus the inflation of our current economy. You think most people not paying MTA cause it’s trendy?
Did the city respond by building more housing? Most cities that see a big increase in rent saw it due to low new construction.
They’re building all the time. Luxury condos with rooftops, and gyms, activity rooms. Oh and remodeling rent stabilized apartments to be smaller. Still no central air. Window A/Cs and heaters need a market.
Oh “building all the time,” well if you can think of anecdotes I guess that solves it
There are literally hundreds of peer reviewed studies that show this concept is not true. if you place *enough* housing where people want to live, longtime residents will not be placed out as the newer, more luxurious housing will attract the gentrifiers. Most areas haven't built enough for demand.
I find it absolutely mindblowing that everyone has just completely blundered past you presenting the notion "Gaza's food crisis is manufactured" as just accepted fact here. The fact you've done that should make you completely unserious and unworthy of any further debate.
Well Martin… somewhere deep deep down in the cockles of my heart, I’m sure that last fuck I had was slightly hurt. Why Martin? Why did you have to hurt that last fuck? It gave all it could. Anyway let me go play with MTA and pretend to be surprise, by train traffic or whatever. You have a nice day