Cities with No Children

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

+1.

There's actually a lot of affordable housing in Washington. It's just not where people want to be -- they want affordable housing that's surrounded by coffee shops and cool bars and has great schools.

If there's so much affordable housing, how come such a large proportion of people are spending such a large proportion of their income on housing costs?

DC is not the only place where it's happening, wages are out of proportion with what people earn even in higher income brackets in most parts of the country, especially cities with more robust job markets. Even 6 figure income professionals today are spending more of their take home income on housing than a decade ago, the housing costs have risen disproportionately to incomes. Do you think NYC poor don't spend most of their earned income on housing unless they live in public housing? If your answer to DC problems is increasing density to the point where it become like NYC then you are also ok with large swaths of public housing and all the blight that comes with it, as NYC isn't really fixing its problems like crumbling conditions and crime. My point is that building more highrise housing isn't going to save DC when majority of it is high priced condos and luxury apartments that are more expensive than existing housing stock, just building boom in Manhattan over the last decade had made zero ding in pricing. Another idea of building swaths of public housing just isolates problem populations and creates other issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New York City is expensive because lots of people want to live there.

Many other people don't live there because it is expensive. They live somewhere else.

If you tried to reduce housing prices in New York City by increasing the housing supply and you actually did build enough units to affect prices, you would encourage more people to move there because now it would be within their budgets. That would push prices back up.

In that scenario, I don't know what is accomplished, unless the goal is to encourage as many people as possible to live in New York instead of somewhere else.

This.

+100

thank you

I wish affordable housing advocates understood this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

+1.

There's actually a lot of affordable housing in Washington. It's just not where people want to be -- they want affordable housing that's surrounded by coffee shops and cool bars and has great schools.

If there's so much affordable housing, how come such a large proportion of people are spending such a large proportion of their income on housing costs?

Move to Anacostia. Your housing costs will plummet.

In this region (DC, Montgomery, PG, Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church), amost half of renters and a quarter of homeowners pay 30 percent or more of their income on housing, and 23 percent of renters and 10 percent of homeowners pay 50% or more.

And your response to this is, "Move to Anacostia." Seriously? All of Ward 8 only has about 35,000 housing units, of which ~90% are occupied.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

+1.

There's actually a lot of affordable housing in Washington. It's just not where people want to be -- they want affordable housing that's surrounded by coffee shops and cool bars and has great schools.

If there's so much affordable housing, how come such a large proportion of people are spending such a large proportion of their income on housing costs?

DC is not the only place where it's happening, wages are out of proportion with what people earn even in higher income brackets in most parts of the country, especially cities with more robust job markets. Even 6 figure income professionals today are spending more of their take home income on housing than a decade ago, the housing costs have risen disproportionately to incomes. Do you think NYC poor don't spend most of their earned income on housing unless they live in public housing? If your answer to DC problems is increasing density to the point where it become like NYC then you are also ok with large swaths of public housing and all the blight that comes with it, as NYC isn't really fixing its problems like crumbling conditions and crime. My point is that building more highrise housing isn't going to save DC when majority of it is high priced condos and luxury apartments that are more expensive than existing housing stock, just building boom in Manhattan over the last decade had made zero ding in pricing. Another idea of building swaths of public housing just isolates problem populations and creates other issues.

We're back to the idea that increasing housing supply won't reduce housing costs. Will it reduce housing costs to the point that poor people can afford to live there? No, the market won't solve that problem. But it will reduce housing costs. The only way it wouldn't, is if people continuously kept moving in from elsewhere into the newly-built units, such that demand always equalled supply. Is that what you think will happen? It's not what I think will happen.

Also DC has a looooooooooooooooooooong way to go until it becomes as dense as NYC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you tried to reduce housing prices in New York City by increasing the housing supply and you actually did build enough units to affect prices, you would encourage more people to move there because now it would be within their budgets. That would push prices back up.


That assumes that if rents went down in NYC by even 1%, lots more people would move there. It assume a homogeneity of preferences for urban living that is unrealistic - in English - even if NYC were cheaper, there are lots of people who do NOT want to live there.

second if that DID happen - more people living in NYC - it would reduce green house gas emissions, because NYC is the most GHG efficient place in the USA.


Similar things apply to DC.

Developers build what's profitable for them, which is luxury condos, not affordable housing. This helps nobody. Would you move from a 3K a month rowhouse rental or an older building 2 bedr apartment to a 3K a month one bedroom luxury apartment in the same area?

1. They build with as much "luxury" as they do because we limit supply so much. If auto producers faced a legal limit on total cars produced they would only produce luxury cars. Increase supply, increase competition, there will be fewer luxury touches added

2. Even so, new housing is costly to build. Markets in the US produce affordable housing when we allow housing to age. There are plenty of old apts in the DC area that are too expensive, because housing is scarce. Build more supply, get more people from those older buildings into the new ones, and the landlords of the older ones will need to cut rents to fill them

3. DC and some suburbs have actual inclusionary zoning requirements - to build more high end units, they have to build income limited units as well.

4. The same NIMBYs who oppose market rate units, generally also oppose new committed Affordable Housing - you won't get more low income housing by preventing new supply.

Where is that land of benevolent high rise builders? You cannot increase supply without giving government incentives, which usually means some sort of subsidized housing. You cannot force developers to take a hit to build. They are not non profits. In NYC building developers get tax breaks if they allocate certain percentage of housing to mid income, they don't want low/no income as they want steadily employed law obedient people, just not high earners, they want MC. But this housing is very hard to get, there are long waitlists and lotteries and qualification requires certain level of earned income, but not more than cut off. I know people who live in these places, there used to be entire buildings and compounds, but nobody is building this anymore. Developers give only a few units away in exchange for tax breaks and this costs the city and its taxpayers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New York City is expensive because lots of people want to live there.

Many other people don't live there because it is expensive. They live somewhere else.

If you tried to reduce housing prices in New York City by increasing the housing supply and you actually did build enough units to affect prices, you would encourage more people to move there because now it would be within their budgets. That would push prices back up.

In that scenario, I don't know what is accomplished, unless the goal is to encourage as many people as possible to live in New York instead of somewhere else.

This.

+100

thank you

I wish affordable housing advocates understood this

They only pretend to care about economics

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you tried to reduce housing prices in New York City by increasing the housing supply and you actually did build enough units to affect prices, you would encourage more people to move there because now it would be within their budgets. That would push prices back up.


That assumes that if rents went down in NYC by even 1%, lots more people would move there. It assume a homogeneity of preferences for urban living that is unrealistic - in English - even if NYC were cheaper, there are lots of people who do NOT want to live there.

second if that DID happen - more people living in NYC - it would reduce green house gas emissions, because NYC is the most GHG efficient place in the USA.


Similar things apply to DC.

Developers build what's profitable for them, which is luxury condos, not affordable housing. This helps nobody. Would you move from a 3K a month rowhouse rental or an older building 2 bedr apartment to a 3K a month one bedroom luxury apartment in the same area?

1. They build with as much "luxury" as they do because we limit supply so much. If auto producers faced a legal limit on total cars produced they would only produce luxury cars. Increase supply, increase competition, there will be fewer luxury touches added

2. Even so, new housing is costly to build. Markets in the US produce affordable housing when we allow housing to age. There are plenty of old apts in the DC area that are too expensive, because housing is scarce. Build more supply, get more people from those older buildings into the new ones, and the landlords of the older ones will need to cut rents to fill them

3. DC and some suburbs have actual inclusionary zoning requirements - to build more high end units, they have to build income limited units as well.

4. The same NIMBYs who oppose market rate units, generally also oppose new committed Affordable Housing - you won't get more low income housing by preventing new supply.

Where is that land of benevolent high rise builders? You cannot increase supply without giving government incentives, which usually means some sort of subsidized housing. You cannot force developers to take a hit to build. They are not non profits. In NYC building developers get tax breaks if they allocate certain percentage of housing to mid income, they don't want low/no income as they want steadily employed law obedient people, just not high earners, they want MC. But this housing is very hard to get, there are long waitlists and lotteries and qualification requires certain level of earned income, but not more than cut off. I know people who live in these places, there used to be entire buildings and compounds, but nobody is building this anymore. Developers give only a few units away in exchange for tax breaks and this costs the city and its taxpayers.

That's addressing point 1.

2. this is a classic chicken and egg problem. To make older units cheaper, new units have to be affordable and abundant. In order of new units to be affordable and abundant developers need to get paid.
3. To build limited income units you need incentives for developers and this costs money to the city. Developers are not going to build enough for a lot of limited income families unless there is profit in it. And building housing low income projects creates social problems, the name of the game these days is mixed housing.
4. To have new supply, someone has to build it, these people need to make money or be somehow compensated. This has to come from someone, are you ok with your RE taxes or income taxes raising up by a lot to have more of this housing built? Are you ok to be that landlord who invested in buying and improving property to give it away for a loss or way below market to forgo that retirement plan or college fund for your kids? What have you done or are willing to do to take away from yourself to improve the housing situation for others? Things cost money, I am not hearing any solutions to that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Where is that land of benevolent high rise builders? You cannot increase supply without giving government incentives, which usually means some sort of subsidized housing. You cannot force developers to take a hit to build. They are not non profits. In NYC building developers get tax breaks if they allocate certain percentage of housing to mid income, they don't want low/no income as they want steadily employed law obedient people, just not high earners, they want MC. But this housing is very hard to get, there are long waitlists and lotteries and qualification requires certain level of earned income, but not more than cut off. I know people who live in these places, there used to be entire buildings and compounds, but nobody is building this anymore. Developers give only a few units away in exchange for tax breaks and this costs the city and its taxpayers.

In DC, Arlington, and Alexandria they give IZ units for density bonuses, not for tax breaks (other low income housing gets tax breaks, but those buildings are all or mostly limited income units)

And of course developers (high rise, mid rise whatever) do build for profit - you don't need benevolence, you need to the govt to get out of the way - all the restrictions, height limits, FAR limits, excessive historic preservation, unjustified parking minimums, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Where is that land of benevolent high rise builders? You cannot increase supply without giving government incentives, which usually means some sort of subsidized housing. You cannot force developers to take a hit to build. They are not non profits. In NYC building developers get tax breaks if they allocate certain percentage of housing to mid income, they don't want low/no income as they want steadily employed law obedient people, just not high earners, they want MC. But this housing is very hard to get, there are long waitlists and lotteries and qualification requires certain level of earned income, but not more than cut off. I know people who live in these places, there used to be entire buildings and compounds, but nobody is building this anymore. Developers give only a few units away in exchange for tax breaks and this costs the city and its taxpayers.

There is such a thing as market-rate affordable housing.

Housing for poor people requires government support. But there's no reason the market can't support housing for lower-income people. It's not as though the housing market were segmented in two groups, (1) people with piles of money and (2) very poor people. If the builders build lots of "luxury" units, then the people with piles of money can stop bidding up the prices of the existing less-luxurious units.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you tried to reduce housing prices in New York City by increasing the housing supply and you actually did build enough units to affect prices, you would encourage more people to move there because now it would be within their budgets. That would push prices back up.


That assumes that if rents went down in NYC by even 1%, lots more people would move there. It assume a homogeneity of preferences for urban living that is unrealistic - in English - even if NYC were cheaper, there are lots of people who do NOT want to live there.

second if that DID happen - more people living in NYC - it would reduce green house gas emissions, because NYC is the most GHG efficient place in the USA.


Similar things apply to DC.

Developers build what's profitable for them, which is luxury condos, not affordable housing. This helps nobody. Would you move from a 3K a month rowhouse rental or an older building 2 bedr apartment to a 3K a month one bedroom luxury apartment in the same area?

1. They build with as much "luxury" as they do because we limit supply so much. If auto producers faced a legal limit on total cars produced they would only produce luxury cars. Increase supply, increase competition, there will be fewer luxury touches added

2. Even so, new housing is costly to build. Markets in the US produce affordable housing when we allow housing to age. There are plenty of old apts in the DC area that are too expensive, because housing is scarce. Build more supply, get more people from those older buildings into the new ones, and the landlords of the older ones will need to cut rents to fill them

3. DC and some suburbs have actual inclusionary zoning requirements - to build more high end units, they have to build income limited units as well.

4. The same NIMBYs who oppose market rate units, generally also oppose new committed Affordable Housing - you won't get more low income housing by preventing new supply.

Where is that land of benevolent high rise builders? You cannot increase supply without giving government incentives, which usually means some sort of subsidized housing. You cannot force developers to take a hit to build. They are not non profits. In NYC building developers get tax breaks if they allocate certain percentage of housing to mid income, they don't want low/no income as they want steadily employed law obedient people, just not high earners, they want MC. But this housing is very hard to get, there are long waitlists and lotteries and qualification requires certain level of earned income, but not more than cut off. I know people who live in these places, there used to be entire buildings and compounds, but nobody is building this anymore. Developers give only a few units away in exchange for tax breaks and this costs the city and its taxpayers.

That's addressing point 1.

2. this is a classic chicken and egg problem. To make older units cheaper, new units have to be affordable and abundant. In order of new units to be affordable and abundant developers need to get paid.
3. To build limited income units you need incentives for developers and this costs money to the city. Developers are not going to build enough for a lot of limited income families unless there is profit in it. And building housing low income projects creates social problems, the name of the game these days is mixed housing.
4. To have new supply, someone has to build it, these people need to make money or be somehow compensated. This has to come from someone, are you ok with your RE taxes or income taxes raising up by a lot to have more of this housing built? Are you ok to be that landlord who invested in buying and improving property to give it away for a loss or way below market to forgo that retirement plan or college fund for your kids? What have you done or are willing to do to take away from yourself to improve the housing situation for others? Things cost money, I am not hearing any solutions to that.

I don't think you understand the RE market in DC. Developers are chomping at the bit to build. They are constrained by local zoning codes, that make it more costly. When we waive those, via PUDs in DC or DSUPs in Va, we make them jump through hoops - and after that people still file lawsuits to stop the development. Look at what has happened with Brookland Manor, or with McMillan, or the battles in Alexandria about the Robinson's Terminal properties.

You do NOT need subsidies to get developers to build more market rate housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New York City is expensive because lots of people want to live there.

Many other people don't live there because it is expensive. They live somewhere else.

If you tried to reduce housing prices in New York City by increasing the housing supply and you actually did build enough units to affect prices, you would encourage more people to move there because now it would be within their budgets. That would push prices back up.

In that scenario, I don't know what is accomplished, unless the goal is to encourage as many people as possible to live in New York instead of somewhere else.

This.

+100

thank you

I wish affordable housing advocates understood this

They only pretend to care about economics

ITA. The moment general population finds out about this magical city where jobs are abundant and pay well and housing is affordable and decent, they will flock there quick enough, thereby increasing the cost. People are not flocking to NYC unless they have to, some work in industries that only exist in NYC or where they will get better career track and potential, some move for family reasons or because they are poor immigrants needing community from their home country, lots of service jobs, and subsidized PT and are ok living in crammed conditions and cannot afford cars. Nobody is moving to NYC because somehow most jobs pay enough to afford nice housing within convenient commutes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you tried to reduce housing prices in New York City by increasing the housing supply and you actually did build enough units to affect prices, you would encourage more people to move there because now it would be within their budgets. That would push prices back up.


That assumes that if rents went down in NYC by even 1%, lots more people would move there. It assume a homogeneity of preferences for urban living that is unrealistic - in English - even if NYC were cheaper, there are lots of people who do NOT want to live there.

second if that DID happen - more people living in NYC - it would reduce green house gas emissions, because NYC is the most GHG efficient place in the USA.


Similar things apply to DC.

Developers build what's profitable for them, which is luxury condos, not affordable housing. This helps nobody. Would you move from a 3K a month rowhouse rental or an older building 2 bedr apartment to a 3K a month one bedroom luxury apartment in the same area?

1. They build with as much "luxury" as they do because we limit supply so much. If auto producers faced a legal limit on total cars produced they would only produce luxury cars. Increase supply, increase competition, there will be fewer luxury touches added

2. Even so, new housing is costly to build. Markets in the US produce affordable housing when we allow housing to age. There are plenty of old apts in the DC area that are too expensive, because housing is scarce. Build more supply, get more people from those older buildings into the new ones, and the landlords of the older ones will need to cut rents to fill them

3. DC and some suburbs have actual inclusionary zoning requirements - to build more high end units, they have to build income limited units as well.

4. The same NIMBYs who oppose market rate units, generally also oppose new committed Affordable Housing - you won't get more low income housing by preventing new supply.

Where is that land of benevolent high rise builders? You cannot increase supply without giving government incentives, which usually means some sort of subsidized housing. You cannot force developers to take a hit to build. They are not non profits. In NYC building developers get tax breaks if they allocate certain percentage of housing to mid income, they don't want low/no income as they want steadily employed law obedient people, just not high earners, they want MC. But this housing is very hard to get, there are long waitlists and lotteries and qualification requires certain level of earned income, but not more than cut off. I know people who live in these places, there used to be entire buildings and compounds, but nobody is building this anymore. Developers give only a few units away in exchange for tax breaks and this costs the city and its taxpayers.

That's addressing point 1.

2. this is a classic chicken and egg problem. To make older units cheaper, new units have to be affordable and abundant. In order of new units to be affordable and abundant developers need to get paid.
3. To build limited income units you need incentives for developers and this costs money to the city. Developers are not going to build enough for a lot of limited income families unless there is profit in it. And building housing low income projects creates social problems, the name of the game these days is mixed housing.
4. To have new supply, someone has to build it, these people need to make money or be somehow compensated. This has to come from someone, are you ok with your RE taxes or income taxes raising up by a lot to have more of this housing built? Are you ok to be that landlord who invested in buying and improving property to give it away for a loss or way below market to forgo that retirement plan or college fund for your kids? What have you done or are willing to do to take away from yourself to improve the housing situation for others? Things cost money, I am not hearing any solutions to that.

I don't think you understand the RE market in DC. Developers are chomping at the bit to build. They are constrained by local zoning codes, that make it more costly. When we waive those, via PUDs in DC or DSUPs in Va, we make them jump through hoops - and after that people still file lawsuits to stop the development. Look at what has happened with Brookland Manor, or with McMillan, or the battles in Alexandria about the Robinson's Terminal properties.

You do NOT need subsidies to get developers to build more market rate housing.

Except they never actually build affordable housing. Literally the only thing they build are luxury condos for rich people. It's funny and strange how the rhetoric from affordable housing advocates and big real estate developers is exactly the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you tried to reduce housing prices in New York City by increasing the housing supply and you actually did build enough units to affect prices, you would encourage more people to move there because now it would be within their budgets. That would push prices back up.


That assumes that if rents went down in NYC by even 1%, lots more people would move there. It assume a homogeneity of preferences for urban living that is unrealistic - in English - even if NYC were cheaper, there are lots of people who do NOT want to live there.

second if that DID happen - more people living in NYC - it would reduce green house gas emissions, because NYC is the most GHG efficient place in the USA.


Similar things apply to DC.

Developers build what's profitable for them, which is luxury condos, not affordable housing. This helps nobody. Would you move from a 3K a month rowhouse rental or an older building 2 bedr apartment to a 3K a month one bedroom luxury apartment in the same area?

1. They build with as much "luxury" as they do because we limit supply so much. If auto producers faced a legal limit on total cars produced they would only produce luxury cars. Increase supply, increase competition, there will be fewer luxury touches added

2. Even so, new housing is costly to build. Markets in the US produce affordable housing when we allow housing to age. There are plenty of old apts in the DC area that are too expensive, because housing is scarce. Build more supply, get more people from those older buildings into the new ones, and the landlords of the older ones will need to cut rents to fill them

3. DC and some suburbs have actual inclusionary zoning requirements - to build more high end units, they have to build income limited units as well.

4. The same NIMBYs who oppose market rate units, generally also oppose new committed Affordable Housing - you won't get more low income housing by preventing new supply.

Where is that land of benevolent high rise builders? You cannot increase supply without giving government incentives, which usually means some sort of subsidized housing. You cannot force developers to take a hit to build. They are not non profits. In NYC building developers get tax breaks if they allocate certain percentage of housing to mid income, they don't want low/no income as they want steadily employed law obedient people, just not high earners, they want MC. But this housing is very hard to get, there are long waitlists and lotteries and qualification requires certain level of earned income, but not more than cut off. I know people who live in these places, there used to be entire buildings and compounds, but nobody is building this anymore. Developers give only a few units away in exchange for tax breaks and this costs the city and its taxpayers.

That's addressing point 1.

2. this is a classic chicken and egg problem. To make older units cheaper, new units have to be affordable and abundant. In order of new units to be affordable and abundant developers need to get paid.
3. To build limited income units you need incentives for developers and this costs money to the city. Developers are not going to build enough for a lot of limited income families unless there is profit in it. And building housing low income projects creates social problems, the name of the game these days is mixed housing.
4. To have new supply, someone has to build it, these people need to make money or be somehow compensated. This has to come from someone, are you ok with your RE taxes or income taxes raising up by a lot to have more of this housing built? Are you ok to be that landlord who invested in buying and improving property to give it away for a loss or way below market to forgo that retirement plan or college fund for your kids? What have you done or are willing to do to take away from yourself to improve the housing situation for others? Things cost money, I am not hearing any solutions to that.

I don't think you understand the RE market in DC. Developers are chomping at the bit to build. They are constrained by local zoning codes, that make it more costly. When we waive those, via PUDs in DC or DSUPs in Va, we make them jump through hoops - and after that people still file lawsuits to stop the development. Look at what has happened with Brookland Manor, or with McMillan, or the battles in Alexandria about the Robinson's Terminal properties.

You do NOT need subsidies to get developers to build more market rate housing.

So, you are saying that in DC market rate housing is affordable for low and mid income? Or are you saying that affordable below market housing is actually profitable for developers to build?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

+1.

There's actually a lot of affordable housing in Washington. It's just not where people want to be -- they want affordable housing that's surrounded by coffee shops and cool bars and has great schools.

If there's so much affordable housing, how come such a large proportion of people are spending such a large proportion of their income on housing costs?

There’s a difference between “affordable” housing and committed affordable housing. I think PP is pointing out that many people can afford to live close-in, but maybe not in the hot or fashionable neighborhoods, and choose instead to stretch and spend more of their take-home pay on “unaffordable” housing in their desired location, or they move further out to find areas that meet their other criteria, and give up on desired proximity. I think PP is specifically talking about DCUM posters who consider large swaths of the city and close-in suburbs unacceptable because of their proximity to lower income populations who live in committed affordable housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Where is that land of benevolent high rise builders? You cannot increase supply without giving government incentives, which usually means some sort of subsidized housing. You cannot force developers to take a hit to build. They are not non profits. In NYC building developers get tax breaks if they allocate certain percentage of housing to mid income, they don't want low/no income as they want steadily employed law obedient people, just not high earners, they want MC. But this housing is very hard to get, there are long waitlists and lotteries and qualification requires certain level of earned income, but not more than cut off. I know people who live in these places, there used to be entire buildings and compounds, but nobody is building this anymore. Developers give only a few units away in exchange for tax breaks and this costs the city and its taxpayers.

There is such a thing as market-rate affordable housing.

Housing for poor people requires government support. But there's no reason the market can't support housing for lower-income people. It's not as though the housing market were segmented in two groups, (1) people with piles of money and (2) very poor people. If the builders build lots of "luxury" units, then the people with piles of money can stop bidding up the prices of the existing less-luxurious units.

The NIMBYs who write this stuff have apparently not shopped for an apartment lately. They do not seem to realize that middle class people live in older high rises, that those older hi rises are priced to the market with great precision, that a tight market for new luxury units sends people, at the margins, into the older buildings, driving their prices up and displacing people further down the ladder or out to sprawlville.