Cities with No Children

[Anonymous]

People need to realize poor people don't have a right to live anywhere they want to that would be crazy and yet this is what affordable housing advocates are actually proposing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous NYC had not solved this problem despite insane rate of new construction [/quote wrote:

Between 2000 and 2016 NYC housing stock grew by 8%. The population grew by 6.6 % and employment grew by 16.5%.

The rate of housing construction in NYC has not only NOT been insane, it has NOT kept up with job growth.

People tend to look at cranes in the most popular neighborhoods in cities, and they get mistaken ideas about the actual magnitude of housing supply, which is usually growing much less than they think.

There is a lot of supply, trust me, nobody is homeless in NYC because there aren't enough unoccupied homes or choosing to live in Flushing over Manhattan or Park slope because there isn't enough for sale or rent. Lots of apartments sit on the market, but prices are not dropping enough, sellers are not as desperate, they wait and someone will come along, lots have equity already, same with DC from what I observed. Same is true for SF where my friends live who sat on sidelines waiting for prices to drop, but eventually had to bite the bullet. Why don't you understand that the main reason for the crazy RE prices is the fact that money just isn't worth as much as before, so things cost more everywhere. I have friends in lower COL cities too, like Denver and NC and SW cities and prices are up as well, not affordable when it comes to higher quality areas and housing stock, just cheaper than most expensive COL coastal cities.

[Anonymous]

It's not going to help people who want to live in Dupont/Kalorama for the price of Anacostia or Lyon Village for the price of Mt.Vernon.

I want housing prices to stop increasing in real terms, and to go down as much as the market, with less constraints will allow. Maybe thats 5% (adj for inflation) or maybe its 10% or maybe its 20%. We don't really know, too many factors at play.

Lots of posters are people who want yuppie areas or sprawling new homes with best schools inside beltway burbs

,

I have spefically said that the supply of large new SFHs is limited. That is why I think the future is multifamily.

It's like those who want to drive a Tesla for the price of Honda Civic, so they wonder and speculate when law will change and luxuries will go cheap.

But we don't have laws limiting the supply of cars like that. Nor should we.

Here is the news, living in posh established desirable parts of any city is a luxury, even if it's an older crappy building, buying a tear down in a prime suburban area with short commute and building a brand new home is a luxury.

Not sure why you are conflating tear downs with old apts in Ward3. And the current shortage of housing in places like DC is extreme and really is driven to considerable degree by zoning.

It's not all because of some malicious political zoning interests, it's how it's always been, there were always expensive parts of DC, people bitched they could not afford, even when most of it was unlivable, and they didn't precipitously dropped in price just because new areas got gentrified or new apartments got built.

Because gentrication is, in fact, a difficult process (and one that does not actually create new housing, unlike development) and the supply of new apts in recent years has been behind the growth in employment.

I still do not see in the thousands of words you have typed, a justification for keeping artificial limits on development. All this stuff - go gentrify somewhere - the housing market is SO complicated - you're a whiner who wants luxury cheap - is just the standard lines we hear when some unjustified, indefensible zoning restriction is being defended.

Lower housing prices, shorter commutes and less auto reliance, more tax revenues for localities, less gentrification pressure, are all good things, and none of the get off my lawn, go suffer, high rents are the law of God stuff changes that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People need to realize poor people don't have a right to live anywhere they want to that would be crazy and yet this is what affordable housing advocates are actually proposing

Poor people don't have a right to have a nice quality or luxury housing in expensive areas, as much as you would want to be their savior. They either get crappy public housing or they get further out places or up and coming neighborhoods. Poor generally have fewer options, being angry about it is ok, but then you have a problem with more than just housing. Even high taxing cities that provide lots of benefits for the poor like NYC and SF aren't able to provide it all and have growing homeless populations. And if you provide luxuries for free, who will want to work? I would love to live in a society where basics are free for everyone, people should have a right to have a roof over their head, protection against elements, crime, and basic medical care and basic food without working. But even I find it a huge stretch when so many here feel entitled to live in luxury housing in the most desirable areas that had been expensive for decades. You gotta pay to play, that's all about it. Hoping that building shiny new towers in places where not many want to live in at the moment would half the prices in the most expensive older parts is a pipe dream.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
There is a lot of supply, trust me, nobody is homeless in NYC because there aren't enough unoccupied homes or choosing to live in Flushing over Manhattan or Park slope because there isn't enough for sale or rent.

That sentence does not make sense. Are you saying no one is homeless in NYC (which is not true) because people are choosing to live in Flushing in or because they are not choosing to live in Flushing?

By the way, afaict housing conditions in Flushing are also strained, lots of lower middle class and working class people living in crowded conditions. I think if you think things are okay because working people still have roofs over their head you are setting a low bar.

[Anonymous]

Poor people don't have a right to have a nice quality or luxury housing in expensive areas, as much as you would want to be their savior.

Everyone has a right to safe, healthful shelter. It should be spread across all areas, so that we do not have economic segregation which produces MORE poverty.

I don't have to be their savior. The majorities of voters in DC, Alexandria, Arlington and MoCo agree with me. Together we will make the region better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I always chuckle when people tell me it's better for the environment when they essentially waste energy 24/7. Lobbies are on with lights 24/7. Elevators for a 5 floor condo building. Etc.

I chuckle when NIMBYs think that the energy for elevators is a big deal. One of the advantages of biking is you get to understand the topography of the region better. Folks commuting even to the inner suburbs are going far more than 5 flights - and they are doing so in their heavy, inefficient SUVs, not an electric elevator with counterweights.

You realize some of those homeowners can easily ride a bike, metro in, and just as energy efficient, right? No one needs a giant SUV if you own a home...

To get morre people near metro we need density in places close to metro (IOW 5 story or bigger condos) To get more people riding bikes we need more people closer in (because most people won't bike commute more than 6 or 7 miles on a regular basis) Etc. Fact is places that are low density, all detached SFHs, are usually high auto use areas, and even if they are not, they do not have enough density to support frequent transit. Density and alternative transportation go together, and sprawl goes with auto commutes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Poor people don't have a right to have a nice quality or luxury housing in expensive areas, as much as you would want to be their savior.

Everyone has a right to safe, healthful shelter. It should be spread across all areas, so that we do not have economic segregation which produces MORE poverty.

I don't have to be their savior. The majorities of voters in DC, Alexandria, Arlington and MoCo agree with me. Together we will make the region better.

lol majorities don't want to live next door to poor people or even middle class people

You are going against human nature

It's the same with people who think schools are going to be some utopia of people from various econonmic classes and by association races. It is never going to happen

You are a describing some utopian society from an urban planning textbook that is extremely rare in real life

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I always chuckle when people tell me it's better for the environment when they essentially waste energy 24/7. Lobbies are on with lights 24/7. Elevators for a 5 floor condo building. Etc.

I chuckle when NIMBYs think that the energy for elevators is a big deal. One of the advantages of biking is you get to understand the topography of the region better. Folks commuting even to the inner suburbs are going far more than 5 flights - and they are doing so in their heavy, inefficient SUVs, not an electric elevator with counterweights.

You realize some of those homeowners can easily ride a bike, metro in, and just as energy efficient, right? No one needs a giant SUV if you own a home...

To get morre people near metro we need density in places close to metro (IOW 5 story or bigger condos) To get more people riding bikes we need more people closer in (because most people won't bike commute more than 6 or 7 miles on a regular basis) Etc. Fact is places that are low density, all detached SFHs, are usually high auto use areas, and even if they are not, they do not have enough density to support frequent transit. Density and alternative transportation go together, and sprawl goes with auto commutes.

The majority of the population doesn't want to live in a shoe box in a giant condo tower.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It's not going to help people who want to live in Dupont/Kalorama for the price of Anacostia or Lyon Village for the price of Mt.Vernon.

I want housing prices to stop increasing in real terms, and to go down as much as the market, with less constraints will allow. Maybe thats 5% (adj for inflation) or maybe its 10% or maybe its 20%. We don't really know, too many factors at play.

Housing prices increase with inflation and inflation is going up. Tell this to people who are moving to lower COL cities where prices are often twice what they used to over a decade ago. I have friends all over and also lived all over, RE is the thing people consider an investment and they need to live somewhere. Most Americans have most of their networth buried in their primary residence. Earned income wealth is deteriorating as salaries are not catching up, so all people have left is what they have in their home, hoping it will keep up with inflation. For people to be able to sell their homes to afford end of life care at a nursing home, prices have to rise. If they stagnate or go down, then there is a problem when everything else is rising.

Lots of posters are people who want yuppie areas or sprawling new homes with best schools inside beltway burbs

,

I have spefically said that the supply of large new SFHs is limited. That is why I think the future is multifamily.

Not for everyone, you cannot force people to live in type of housing they consider crammed or not comfortable, multifamily is not the only type of housing historically available all the world. Some people want nature and land, some want more privacy. Have you directly experienced living in an apartment with kids or had grown up in one yourself? I had done both and there are downsides to this type of situation and many sacrifices many people are not willing to make. A world where everyone is forced to live in a certain type of housing, especially close proximity to others or limited sq.ft or limited outdoors usually is a domain of dystopian sci fi novels and for a reason.

It's like those who want to drive a Tesla for the price of Honda Civic, so they wonder and speculate when law will change and luxuries will go cheap.

But we don't have laws limiting the supply of cars like that. Nor should we.

We are talking about luxury here, which applies not only to goods but also to places to live as it's historically been the case. You cannot put everyone in identical homes, rich would naturally have sprawling quarters with more luxury and poor would live in squalid conditions. All I hope we would aspire to improve is conditions of the very poor and destitute and provide adequate shelter/food/basic medical care. After that it's all luxury and you must pay. If you want a luxurious condo in a posh district, you gotta hustle and make more money, that's all there is to it. Nobody is entitled to luxury housing beyond very basics. Sadly, many don't even have basics, which is what you should concentrate on, but that's not a topic of this conversation.

Here is the news, living in posh established desirable parts of any city is a luxury, even if it's an older crappy building, buying a tear down in a prime suburban area with short commute and building a brand new home is a luxury.

Not sure why you are conflating tear downs with old apts in Ward3. And the current shortage of housing in places like DC is extreme and really is driven to considerable degree by zoning.

it's driven by desire of people to live in some areas and avoid others. Desirable suburbs are often source of complaint on DCUM, people want cheap tear down lots, not happening. People want cheap luxury condos in posh city parts, not happening. Built as many highrises in parts these people don't want to live in, are you solving THEIR problems?

It's not all because of some malicious political zoning interests, it's how it's always been, there were always expensive parts of DC, people bitched they could not afford, even when most of it was unlivable, and they didn't precipitously dropped in price just because new areas got gentrified or new apartments got built.

Because gentrication is, in fact, a difficult process (and one that does not actually create new housing, unlike development) and the supply of new apts in recent years has been behind the growth in employment.


Development of cheaper housing can only happen in cheaper parts where land is cheap, AND people have to want to move there en masse to support desirable amenities and schools, and even then problem won't be solved. If jobs are growing, rents are not going to go down significantly which is what you want. They may stagnate some with more supply temporarily, but creating more jobs doesn't usually lead to lower COL. Show me an example of rapidly growing prosperous city where cost of housing is actually getting cheaper?

I still do not see in the thousands of words you have typed, a justification for keeping artificial limits on development. All this stuff - go gentrify somewhere - the housing market is SO complicated - you're a whiner who wants luxury cheap - is just the standard lines we hear when some unjustified, indefensible zoning restriction is being defended.

Lower housing prices, shorter commutes and less auto reliance, more tax revenues for localities, less gentrification pressure, are all good things, and none of the get off my lawn, go suffer, high rents are the law of God stuff changes that.

I am not justifying the limits and honestly don't see how this would affect anyone whining about high housing costs in highly desirable city and suburban parts. I lived in a very expensive area and new condos went up, it didn't make rents for older homes cheaper. New condos were more expensive and they also brought more amenities which citizens living in older housing found very desirable and didn't want to move. Land was expensive and there were no affordable homes built there, developers wanted profit. There were lots of cheaper newer condos built in up and coming parts of the city over that time that I observed. They didn't affect me as I had no interest in living there, they also didn't move enough people out of my area to lower COL for us. Now, if you also consider following two parts to stay on topic of this thread, things get more complicated:

1) Not everyone wants the same type of housing. You may not be able to pay enough for some people to live in an apartment.
2) Not everyone wants to live in any neighborhood and people have jobs all over the place and job centers are spread out.
3) Families want amenities that new condo tower builders tend to ignore and that cheaper land areas simply don't provide at least not for a while. Families want safety, established already gentrified areas, decent public schools, which takes a while to ramp up, playgrounds/activities and businesses welcoming to children and reasonably affordable. New condo construction tends to attract the childless and businesses around tend to reflect this. For this to change in a city of DC density, where families have many options of various housing is a far fetched goal, you think just changing zoning in some places will change this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The more new luxury condos they build for rich people, the fewer existing non-luxury condos those rich people are going to outbid non-rich people for.

So basically it’s trickle down economics, except with housing. It’s so odd hearing leftie housing affordability people espousing right wing theories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Poor people don't have a right to have a nice quality or luxury housing in expensive areas, as much as you would want to be their savior.

Everyone has a right to safe, healthful shelter. It should be spread across all areas, so that we do not have economic segregation which produces MORE poverty.

I don't have to be their savior. The majorities of voters in DC, Alexandria, Arlington and MoCo agree with me. Together we will make the region better.

This might be one of the funniest things I’ve read in ages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There is a lot of supply, trust me, nobody is homeless in NYC because there aren't enough unoccupied homes or choosing to live in Flushing over Manhattan or Park slope because there isn't enough for sale or rent.

That sentence does not make sense. Are you saying no one is homeless in NYC (which is not true) because people are choosing to live in Flushing in or because they are not choosing to live in Flushing?

By the way, afaict housing conditions in Flushing are also strained, lots of lower middle class and working class people living in crowded conditions. I think if you think things are okay because working people still have roofs over their head you are setting a low bar.

I thought it was pretty clear. Nobody is homeless BECAUSE there are no empty homes in NYC, just like nobody is homeless in DC because there is not a single unoccupied place. Nobody is choosing far away parts of Queens to live in over Manhattan because there are no apartments left in Manhattan. They are choosing to live in Queens because it's cheaper. Manhattan has plenty of empty apartments, many sitting on the market for many months. They have expensive rentals that take a while to rent. Cheaper housing obviously get snatched quickly, but don't be fooled that there is no supply. There is simply no supply of cheaper housing, that's all there is. And building cheaper housing in Manhattan isn't happening any time soon. Cheaper housing is available though if you want to move to certain parts of NYC, deep into outer boroughs or East Harlem, Inwood, Riverdale, Bronx. Nearby Jersey towns are also affordable especially the ones without posh shopping malls and top schools. Nobody is entitled to live in Manhattan or brownstone Brooklyn or shiny condos with river views. Nobody is entitled to sprawling apartments either. Many double six figure earner professional families live in 2 bedr apartments and the low income families live in apartments further out or public housing.

[Anonymous]

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.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Poor people don't have a right to have a nice quality or luxury housing in expensive areas, as much as you would want to be their savior.

Everyone has a right to safe, healthful shelter. It should be spread across all areas, so that we do not have economic segregation which produces MORE poverty.

I don't have to be their savior. The majorities of voters in DC, Alexandria, Arlington and MoCo agree with me. Together we will make the region better.

This might be one of the funniest things I’ve read in ages.

Just going to say as a homeowner - I don't think anyone has the right to live in an expensive area unless they can afford it AND there's a special place for loiterers like this man who lived in a rent-controlled apartment for 30+ years and had no income but took the new buyers to court because he didn't want to lose his free ride.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/technology/business-insider/article/San-Francisco-artist-kicked-out-of-apartment-6807971.php