Discussion
  • Read More
    norbiznessHamilton Nolan
    2/12/16 12:59pm

    If the goal is ownership of low-cost housing, who gives a shit that in a extremely limited set of data rent increases more slowly in geographically bounded communities?

    Come to Austin, where space is unlimited, so that low-income people are just pushed further and further out of town, so if we even have an appreciable slow-down in rents (we don’t), it’s easily eaten up by transportation costs/inconvenience.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      9-Linesnorbizness
      2/12/16 1:12pm

      “Come to Austin,”

      Sorry but Austin is surrounded by Texas...

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      levariennorbizness
      2/12/16 1:14pm

      But I don’t want to live in Manor! Oh wait...Manor is the new Cedar Park. Okay, I don’t want to live in Elgin. Oh, Elgin’s too posh now? Hutto? Taylor? Giddings?

      Pretty soon I’ll be living half way between Austin and Houston.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    dothedewHamilton Nolan
    2/12/16 12:51pm

    I really need to find this Mayonnaise Store everyone seems to be buzzing about. Do you get to try samples?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      JaxJimdothedew
      2/12/16 12:56pm

      And it’s inevitable knockoff - Miracle Whip Stores

      Though, there are probably a few of those already in pre-gentrified neighborhoods.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      ShyWicklowdothedew
      2/12/16 12:56pm

      I want to send Nolan the new winter coat from the Yeezy collection because I worry about him being cold, but do you think he’d wear it?

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    heartbraiderHamilton Nolan
    2/12/16 1:04pm

    I know you guys aren’t a fan of the Vox crew but Matt Yglasias writes about this all the time and has a similar point of view.

    Props to Gawker for having a somewhat more evenhanded look at the issue. It’s easy to talk about how terrible rich people condos in poor neighborhoods are, it’s a hard truth to acknowledge that things that limit the supply of housing (restrictive zoning, community boards trying to “preserve the character of communities”) are the result of political action people in the middle class, not the upper class.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      AM123heartbraider
      2/12/16 1:11pm

      This is hardly evenhanded. Its still incredibly biased. The only remotely evenhanded thing mentioned here is that affordable housing is an extremely thorny and complex problem to solve.

      For example, in NYC, the mandatory affordable housing rules being contemplated are not “small” as HamNo wants to claim; its 30%. That is a huge percentage. To qualify for (now expired) tax benefits, it was 20 or 30%. These are large numbers, not small.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Hamilton NolanAM123
      2/12/16 1:23pm

      I’m interested what you think is biased.

      Here is something on the NYC affordable housing plan, btw: http://gawker.com/the-insane-and…

      The question that interests me is “What is the best way to make enough affordable housing?” If it turns out that setting aside 30% of new housing as affordable is in fact more expensive/ inefficient than another method, we should do the other method. But that’s what studies are for. You can also read the study linked in the post.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    toothpetardHamilton Nolan
    2/12/16 1:06pm

    as the rich chase ever newer housing stock

    This is why luxury condos should be on giant tank treads, rolling from place to place as whim takes them.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      RobNYCtoothpetard
      2/12/16 1:14pm

      I’m putting you in change of urban planning.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      toothpetardRobNYC
      2/12/16 1:20pm

      HOIST THE MAINSAIL!

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    beenhereHamilton Nolan
    2/12/16 1:09pm

    Questions - what about some of the side effects of gentrification:

    - Are there more grocery stores for everyone?

    - Are there more small-businesses?

    - Is the low-income housing - because it “looks bad” to the gentrifiers - getting updated and KEPT low-income?

    Just curious if the study looks at that. Grocery stores would help with the “grocery desert” issue SO many low-income areas have. More small-businesses = more middle class and the update of housing helps with asthma and other issues...

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      XrdsAlumbeenhere
      2/12/16 1:29pm

      In cities like NYC and L.A. supermarkets come in to serve higher density affluent neighborhoods, although they’ll be more pricey than any existing supermarkets (but not as expensive as bodegas and delis that serve the residents of “food deserts”).

      The small businesses that come in tend to displace the ones that serve low-income people, so a barbershop serving low-income people will be priced out by a salon, a KFC will be priced out by a Chipotle, a thrift store will be replaced by a vintage clothing boutique, the dollar stores will vanish completely, etc. That usually doesn’t work out so well for low-income residents.

      The remaining low-income housing gets updated by a competent landlord in a gentrifying neighborhood as much as rent control allows it to, no more and no less. The landlords usually try to find ways to get the low-income residents out so they can do a full reno and charge above market rate in the newly gentrified area.

      The upshot is that things get nicer for low-income people for a little while but then the area becomes too costly for them to live in.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Whatthefoxsaysbeenhere
      2/12/16 1:34pm

      The small businesses that creep in with high income gentrifiers are hardly the businesses that poor people want. $4 donuts? $5 coffee? High end specialty food stores where a banana is $2? That’s Brooklyn in a nutshell.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Lil TuffyHamilton Nolan
    2/12/16 12:58pm

    One important fact missing from this study is units that are purposely vacant. Whether it be for legal or investment/speculation reasons, San Francisco has an estimated 30,000 empty units capable of housing 84,000 people. Reintroducing all of those empty units would pretty much end he housing shortage.

    Ref: http://www.antievictionmappingproject.net/vacancy.html

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      RobNYCLil Tuffy
      2/12/16 1:13pm

      That’s pretty much what those super tall buildings along Central Park are. They’ll be mostly vacant. The really sad thing about that is they could have built more apartments on those sites that cost less and would add more housing stock, but they choose to build safety-deposit boxes in the sky.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      ARGHTHEHUMANITYLil Tuffy
      2/12/16 1:22pm

      Why is this concept of “taking back” investment/part-time occupancy buildings even a thing? Accept that we are not going to steal property from people if it can be avoided. Start thinking about real solutions and not some wacked-out authoritarian idea that the people who own these properties are somehow not allowed to keep their property because some other group of people want a place to live.

      This is not Soviet Russia, people here have the right to do with their property more or less as they please. That should never change. Ever. Now maybe increasing property taxes on properties that are primarily unoccupied in order to generate more revenue to help subsidize new lower income development might be an option, but taking the property away because the owner isn’t using it enough to satisfy some self-important middle class twat who wants a nicer place to live? No. Just no.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Montauk MonsterHamilton Nolan
    2/12/16 1:02pm

    Nashville is going through the throes of this right now. There has been a lot of growth and change in this city over the past five years or so, and one particular aspect has been funny to me - the hands-down biggest crybabies about newcomers and gentrification are the starving artists and musicians who began the wave of displacement for lower-income (primarily black) families 5-10 years ago, mostly in East Nashville, bringing fancy bars and restaurants and coffee shops in behind them.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Tidal TownMontauk Monster
      2/12/16 1:36pm

      I bought a house in East Nashville ~6 months ago. An original 1949 brick box, couldn't afford any of these new ones being built. My only issue is these skinny houses. They're ugly AF. Myself and my neighbor, a very nice black woman who has lived in that house for decades, are the only original houses left on be block. It's nuts.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Montauk MonsterTidal Town
      2/12/16 2:20pm

      And here’s an example for people who may not know - older house on the right, two new houses on one lot on the left. The lower levels are usually open concept (of fucking course) with, I grant, pretty nice countertops and fixtures, but the rest of it feels cheap. Beige carpet, flimsy doors, no yard, pushed right on top of neighbors, no garage, often in neighborhoods with century old bungalows, or even interesting ranch houses that just need a little TLC. 400k starter homes that will look run down like crazy in a decade.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    MattyWollyHamilton Nolan
    2/12/16 12:56pm

    Los Angeles and San Francisco both can benefit from zoning changes to allow more density.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      puncha yo bunsMattyWolly
      2/12/16 12:57pm

      UGH LOS ANGELES ZONING SUCKS WHO PLANNED THIS CITY???? :(

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      XrdsAlumMattyWolly
      2/12/16 1:01pm

      It's already started in L.A. along the new rail lines, with high-density condos and rental buildings being put up adjacent to them or over them. But it's limited to certain areas.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Negasonic Oldage WarheadHamilton Nolan
    2/12/16 1:02pm

    Well, in Chicago, at least, a lot new housing stock for wealthy people is built at a lower density than the building that’s being replaced. You have a three flat apartment building get torn down and replaced with a single family building - you go from 3 units housing 10 or more people to one unit housing 4 or 5 people.

    You tear down an 18 or 24 unit courtyard building and replace it with 3 single family homes, and it gets even worse.

    That certainly does not help the poor.

    It only helps the housing stock situation if the new housing is built at higher densities than the old.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      XrdsAlumNegasonic Oldage Warhead
      2/12/16 1:15pm

      As far as the condo developers referenced in the original article are concerned, they usually want higher densities which equal more profits. If they buy a three unit rental building and knock it down they'd prefer to build a midrise or highrise with 30-200 condo or luxury rental units (including a few 2500sqf+ ones) if the zoning allows it. It sounds like the situation you describe in Chicago comes back around to zoning and height restrictions.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      CMesztNegasonic Oldage Warhead
      2/12/16 1:27pm

      Depends where you are. I used to be in East Village, and all the historic cottage-style single family houses (usually 2 or 3 bedroom) are getting torn down and replaced with ugly 3 flat condos.

      I’m curious what neighborhood your examples are coming from.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    ThomasMooreHamilton Nolan
    2/12/16 1:26pm

    Omg. Talk about buying into investment real estate spin.

    Adding high end inventory “slows” the rate of rent increases? Jesus. Ya don’t say.

    Math is hard. Well it doesn’t really. Not if you measure it by cost per square footage like you would commercial real estate instead of by individual unit. But okay sure. More units, averages get spread around. More options and competition. Sure.

    But rents STILL trend up in growing markets.

    Building more like inventory in growing markets doesn’t lower rents. They still trend up. Rental markets are not like other commodities. People HAVE to live somewhere.

    Look. There are only two things that LOWER rents or REVERSE increase trends. TWO THINGS.

    One- is economic contraction. Almost Always Bad.

    Two- is market interference by government. Sometimes Good.

    Period. That’s it.

    Developers will not build one inch more and property management groups will not rent one inch more than they can maximize profit for.

    Right now the big investment banks are looking for real estate to park money. In most major cities they are buying up property management groups and apartments. They are building virtual monopolies.

    What they want is this deregulated environment becuase they are scared shitless of rent controls like what’s happening in Europe. Which are WORKING. Read up on Berlin.

    So everywhere you suddenly see reports like this that basically reinforce the status quo of greed and corruption.

    Are these reports “true?” yes. Do we need more housing in big cities? yes. Does some zoning need to accommodate more density? Sure.

    But not at the expense of livability, communities, and poor people.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      VanNostrandThomasMoore
      2/12/16 3:50pm

      Bravo.

      Reply
      <